politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Unsurprisingly the betting moves against Trump serving a full
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Unsurprisingly the betting moves against Trump serving a full term
Russia revelations send odds of #Trump surviving four years below 50% for the first time in nearly two months. https://t.co/RT5k7lTSiL pic.twitter.com/T7sJJiS0z4
Comments
-
He will serve the rest of this term, then step down.0
-
Pence is key. Watch what he says and does.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/07/10/is-mike-pence-betting-it-will-all-come-crashing-down-on-trump/?utm_term=.634e8b23311f0 -
An Ivanka candidacy would surely be his preferred Plan B to serving a second term.Ishmael_Z said:He will serve the rest of this term, then step down.
0 -
FTP:
Of course. And here is a smiley for youCasino_Royale said:
Thanks. Not had a great few weeks.Beverley_C said:Thank you. I hope you are feeling a bit better. You seemed a bit off form the other day.
My problem of course but I lash out when I'm at my worst.
Please accept my apologies.
0 -
-
They could re-use all the campaign signs then. Efficiency!williamglenn said:
An Ivanka candidacy would surely be his preferred Plan B to serving a second term.Ishmael_Z said:He will serve the rest of this term, then step down.
0 -
TBH the latest 'revelations' look pretty feeble. Donald Trump Jr was undoubtedly naive, but agreeing to a meeting with someone who claims to have useful dirt on your opponent doesn't strike me as warranting the degree of genuine or synthetic outrage that we are seeing at the moment.
Of course, what really matters is whether Republicans choose to use this and other stories to get rid of Trump. It's purely about political calculation on all sides, and I tend to agree with TSE that the calculation by the Republicans will be to vote against any attempt to impeach.0 -
I was idly browsing, and it's 1.4 for Yes to independence in the Catalan referendum on Ladbrokes. Such things can, of course, take unexpected turns, but what would the near term consequences be of such a result?0
-
I have always believed that the GOP strategy was that Trump was seen as the populist who could get the Republicans into the Whitehouse and then either be disposed of or commit political hari-kari himself. That made the selection of the VP highly important and Mike Pence seems to be a deeply religious, right-winger.Jonathan said:Pence is key. Watch what he says and does.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/07/10/is-mike-pence-betting-it-will-all-come-crashing-down-on-trump/?utm_term=.634e8b23311f
Trump is dangerous because he is unpredictable, but I believe Pence is dangerous because he holds out-dated world views. I am not sure which one of the two scares me more.0 -
So it's kind of amazing that he's still in office - someone was saying it's like the plot of House of Cards with the cast of The Veep - but you have to look at the specific ways this can happen:
1) He goes of his own accord. This would be an uncharacteristic admission of failure, and he'd lose the ability to pardon his friends and family for breaking the law.
2) He is toppled by his own cabinet. Hard to see, outside a Trump administration they'd be largely unemployable.
3) He is toppled by a Republican Senate. Not quite impossible, but the base would not be happy at this kind of display of cuckery.
4) The Republicans lose the Senate, and the Dems impeach him. Very hard to see, it's a horrible map.
Add this to the general law of politics that things generally don't happen, and the value is with "remain".0 -
It meeting with someone who claims to speak for the Russian state that makes this newsworthy. If it had been an American there would be no story here.Richard_Nabavi said:TBH the latest 'revelations' look pretty feeble. Donald Trump Jr was undoubtedly naive, but agreeing to a meeting with someone who claims to have useful dirt on your opponent doesn't strike me as warranting the degree of genuine or synthetic outrage that we are seeing at the moment.
Of course, what really matters is whether Republicans choose to use this and other stories to get rid of Trump. It's purely about political calculation on all sides, and I tend to agree with TSE that the calculation by the Republicans will be to vote against any attempt to impeach.0 -
"Mr Shaw said that £1 billion had been pumped into London's tech sector by investors during the first half of this year alone, adding: "Berlin has a lot of catching up to do”."isam said:twitter.com/standardnews/status/885119048438001664
I can believe that Berlin is cheaper than London due to living costs, but I am sure that Brexit had a part in the decision too. Also the comment that Berlin "... has a lot of catching up to do" means that Berlin is a ready market for Samsung and its communications technology.
0 -
The value's got to be on him staying, given the process required to get rid of him.
Late night comedians in New York might think he should be in jail, but it's what Republican Senators in Washington think that actually matters.0 -
RSpain running out of money, one imagines...Morris_Dancer said:I was idly browsing, and it's 1.4 for Yes to independence in the Catalan referendum on Ladbrokes. Such things can, of course, take unexpected turns, but what would the near term consequences be of such a result?
0 -
Newsworthy, yes, but not much more than that. It would be like an aide to the Labour Party agreeing to meet someone from Panama who claimed to have dirt on a Conservative minister. Would you be indignant in that scenario?Jonathan said:It meeting with someone who claims to speak for the Russian state that makes this newsworthy. If it had been an American there would be no story here.
0 -
Berlin is much less fun than London.Beverley_C said:
"Mr Shaw said that £1 billion had been pumped into London's tech sector by investors during the first half of this year alone, adding: "Berlin has a lot of catching up to do”."isam said:twitter.com/standardnews/status/885119048438001664
I can believe that Berlin is cheaper than London due to living costs, but I am sure that Brexit had a part in the decision too. Also the comment that Berlin "... has a lot of catching up to do" means that Berlin is a ready market for Samsung and its communications technology.
It is as simple as that for the young tech starters.0 -
Mr. Mortimer, surely the army being sent in after a formal rejection of the result (as invalid) would happen first?0
-
I think the biggest risk to Trump is his health. He looks to have put on about 10 kilos and 10 years since he became President just six months ago. He's also at an age when the risk of medical issues starts to grow significantly.Ishmael_Z said:He will serve the rest of this term, then step down.
Now, is it a 50% chance that he fails to complete his first term due to health issues? Nope. But it's probably 25% or so.0 -
Not just an aide. The son (and most trusted aide) of the leader.Richard_Nabavi said:
Newsworthy, yes, but not much more than that. It would be like an aide to the Labour Party agreeing to meet someone from Panama who claimed to have dirt on a Conservative minister. Would you be indignant in that scenario?Jonathan said:It meeting with someone who claims to speak for the Russian state that makes this newsworthy. If it had been an American there would be no story here.
And in the context of allegations of direct foreign intervention that may have flipped in an election.
Would I be indignant? No. I am not indignant now. Suspicious and concerned? Sure
0 -
Imagine if the story were reversed and it were the son of a Russian opposition politician agreeing to meet with someone claiming to speak for US government and offering dirt on Putin. How many would share the synthetic outrage there would be in Russia?Jonathan said:
It meeting with someone who claims to speak for the Russian state that makes this newsworthy. If it had been an American there would be no story here.Richard_Nabavi said:TBH the latest 'revelations' look pretty feeble. Donald Trump Jr was undoubtedly naive, but agreeing to a meeting with someone who claims to have useful dirt on your opponent doesn't strike me as warranting the degree of genuine or synthetic outrage that we are seeing at the moment.
Of course, what really matters is whether Republicans choose to use this and other stories to get rid of Trump. It's purely about political calculation on all sides, and I tend to agree with TSE that the calculation by the Republicans will be to vote against any attempt to impeach.0 -
I think it's more that there is much greater availability of capital in London than Berlin. 70% of Europe's venture capital is in London, and probably half its seed capital (thanks EIS!) and "accelerators".Mortimer said:
Berlin is much less fun than London.Beverley_C said:
"Mr Shaw said that £1 billion had been pumped into London's tech sector by investors during the first half of this year alone, adding: "Berlin has a lot of catching up to do”."isam said:twitter.com/standardnews/status/885119048438001664
I can believe that Berlin is cheaper than London due to living costs, but I am sure that Brexit had a part in the decision too. Also the comment that Berlin "... has a lot of catching up to do" means that Berlin is a ready market for Samsung and its communications technology.
It is as simple as that for the young tech starters.
That being said, for "new media" type start-ups (as opposed to "hard tech"), I would estimate Berlin is probably passing London now. Why? Living costs in Berlin are a fraction of the level of London, and a 24 year old, earning €20,000/year can afford their own flat there, something unthinkable in London.0 -
I think he hates being President. Its not like running your own companyrcs1000 said:
I think the biggest risk to Trump is his health. He looks to have put on about 10 kilos and 10 years since he became President just six months ago. He's also at an age when the risk of medical issues starts to grow significantly.Ishmael_Z said:He will serve the rest of this term, then step down.
Now, is it a 50% chance that he fails to complete his first term due to health issues? Nope. But it's probably 25% or so.0 -
And of course, the Trump camp have been lying about meeting the Russians for the last year.Jonathan said:
Not just an aide. The son (and most trusted aide) of the leader.Richard_Nabavi said:
Newsworthy, yes, but not much more than that. It would be like an aide to the Labour Party agreeing to meet someone from Panama who claimed to have dirt on a Conservative minister. Would you be indignant in that scenario?Jonathan said:It meeting with someone who claims to speak for the Russian state that makes this newsworthy. If it had been an American there would be no story here.
And in the context of allegations of direct foreign intervention that may have flipped in an election.
Would I be indignant? No. I am not indignant now. Suspicious and concerned? Sure0 -
remind you of anyone?currystar said:
I think he hates being President. Its not like runningrcs1000 said:
I think the biggest risk to Trump is his health. He looks to have put on about 10 kilos and 10 years since he became President just six months ago. He's also at an age when the risk of medical issues starts to grow significantly.Ishmael_Z said:He will serve the rest of this term, then step down.
Now, is it a 50% chance that he fails to complete his first term due to health issues? Nope. But it's probably 25% or so.your own companythe home office0 -
Although I agree with you that the Republican hierarchy will decide Trump's fate, I do think the latest revelation is very significant. Trump supporters hold two defences for their man: (a) He didn't collude with the Russians; (b) It doesn't matter if he did. The first more concrete defence looks to have been definitively breached b by the revelations. The second more subjective defence could be less reliable.Richard_Nabavi said:TBH the latest 'revelations' look pretty feeble. Donald Trump Jr was undoubtedly naive, but agreeing to a meeting with someone who claims to have useful dirt on your opponent doesn't strike me as warranting the degree of genuine or synthetic outrage that we are seeing at the moment.
Of course, what really matters is whether Republicans choose to use this and other stories to get rid of Trump. It's purely about political calculation on all sides, and I tend to agree with TSE that the calculation by the Republicans will be to vote against any attempt to impeach.0 -
It's amazing how few polls there have been this year (3), but those there have been have shown narrow lead for Independence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017) - with the exception of the forced choice one (i.e., you're not allowed to say "I don't know", which had a narrow lead for staying in Spain.Morris_Dancer said:I was idly browsing, and it's 1.4 for Yes to independence in the Catalan referendum on Ladbrokes. Such things can, of course, take unexpected turns, but what would the near term consequences be of such a result?
My personal view is that the Catalan independence movement has made an error - not in calling for a referendum but in declaring that an out vote leads to an immediate unilateral declaration of independence. Given the technical difficulties associated with a sudden break (much greater, of course, that the repeal of the European Communities Act), I suspect this will cause a lot of otherwise pro-Independence oriented Catalans to not risk it (this time).
For that reason, I would bet against independence.0 -
I agree. I noted that at the recent walkabout in Taormarina he was in a golf cart, while the other leaders walked. He does not look healthy, and I think his mental sharpness has gone. Just listen to his speeches now vs a couple of years ago.rcs1000 said:
I think the biggest risk to Trump is his health. He looks to have put on about 10 kilos and 10 years since he became President just six months ago. He's also at an age when the risk of medical issues starts to grow significantly.Ishmael_Z said:He will serve the rest of this term, then step down.
Now, is it a 50% chance that he fails to complete his first term due to health issues? Nope. But it's probably 25% or so.0 -
Mr. 1000, interesting post. I might give that a look (for small money, of course. Spanish politics isn't my forte).0
-
Once triggered, can Article 50 be revoked?
It was the decision of the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of the notification.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-2001_en.htm0 -
Dr. Foxinsox, it's not only his health you should consider, but his stubbornness. Not standing again is one thing, retiring early would be seen by some men are weakness.0
-
It would be ironic, given how much of an issue he made of Hillary's health, if it was his own ill health that forced him from office.foxinsoxuk said:
I agree. I noted that at the recent walkabout in Taormarina he was in a golf cart, while the other leaders walked. He does not look healthy, and I think his mental sharpness has gone. Just listen to his speeches now vs a couple of years ago.rcs1000 said:
I think the biggest risk to Trump is his health. He looks to have put on about 10 kilos and 10 years since he became President just six months ago. He's also at an age when the risk of medical issues starts to grow significantly.Ishmael_Z said:He will serve the rest of this term, then step down.
Now, is it a 50% chance that he fails to complete his first term due to health issues? Nope. But it's probably 25% or so.
(Good spot re the golf cart.)0 -
He also doesn't seem to like the hatred of him from the majority of peoplecurrystar said:
I think he hates being President. Its not like running your own companyrcs1000 said:
I think the biggest risk to Trump is his health. He looks to have put on about 10 kilos and 10 years since he became President just six months ago. He's also at an age when the risk of medical issues starts to grow significantly.Ishmael_Z said:He will serve the rest of this term, then step down.
Now, is it a 50% chance that he fails to complete his first term due to health issues? Nope. But it's probably 25% or so.0 -
I expect somewhat the same to happen as in 2014. The referendum will carry by a substantial margin on a low turnout. Those opposed don't think the exercise is valid and will boycott it. The declaration by the Catalan government that Yes automatically results in independence is a threat to those who stay away. If you don't turn up to vote, you are choosing independence. It remains to be seen whether the threat will have an effect.rcs1000 said:
It's amazing how few polls there have been this year (3), but those there have been have shown narrow lead for Independence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017) - with the exception of the forced choice one (i.e., you're not allowed to say "I don't know", which had a narrow lead for staying in Spain.Morris_Dancer said:I was idly browsing, and it's 1.4 for Yes to independence in the Catalan referendum on Ladbrokes. Such things can, of course, take unexpected turns, but what would the near term consequences be of such a result?
My personal view is that the Catalan independence movement has made an error - not in calling for a referendum but in declaring that an out vote leads to an immediate unilateral declaration of independence. Given the technical difficulties associated with a sudden break (much greater, of course, that the repeal of the European Communities Act), I suspect this will cause a lot of otherwise pro-Independence oriented Catalans to not risk it (this time).
For that reason, I would bet against independence.
Regardless of the result, I don't expect there actually to be independence0 -
I wonder if the Commission already has a draft accession treaty ready to go to bring us back in under Article 49 minus our opt outs.CarlottaVance said:Once triggered, can Article 50 be revoked?
It was the decision of the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of the notification.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-2001_en.htm0 -
-
Has any Vice President ever stood against his President before? Could Pence be preparing for that even if Trump stands again?Jonathan said:Pence is key. Watch what he says and does.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/07/10/is-mike-pence-betting-it-will-all-come-crashing-down-on-trump/?utm_term=.634e8b23311f0 -
Can a Member State apply to re-join after it leaves?williamglenn said:
I wonder if the Commission already has a draft accession treaty ready to go to bring us back in under Article 49 minus our opt outs.CarlottaVance said:Once triggered, can Article 50 be revoked?
It was the decision of the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of the notification.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-2001_en.htm
Any country that has withdrawn from the EU may apply to re-join. It would be required to go through the accession procedure.0 -
I think the value play is Pence to win in 2020.
EDIT: I see Jonathan has already drawn attention to the same article. It's a bet that can win in multiple ways - mid-term succession after impeachment/resignation/health; anointed succession; contested succession. And I don't think the Democrats are doing enough thinking about how they win; they're assuming Trump's awfulness will deliver them victory. Where have I heard a similar story before?
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/07/10/is-mike-pence-betting-it-will-all-come-crashing-down-on-trump/0 -
Here is a good rule of thumb for dealing with Donald Trump: Everyone who gives him the benefit of the doubt eventually regrets it.
This was true of clients and contractors and creditors throughout his business career. It was true of the sycophants and opportunists before whom he dangled cabinet appointments during the campaign and then, oh, never mind. It has been true of his cabinet members and spokesmen, whose attempts to defend and explain their boss’s conduct are gleefully undercut by the boss himself. And it should be true — for the sake of their souls, I sincerely hope it’s true — of the Republican leaders whose reputations for probity and principle he has stomped all over since winning their party’s nomination.
And now it’s true of me.
The benefit of the doubt I extended to Trump was limited, but on a rather important subject: I thought that direct collusion between his inner circle and Russian officialdom during the 2016 campaign was relatively unlikely and the odds of ever finding proof of such a conspiracy vanishingly low.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/opinion/trump-russia-collusion.html0 -
Barnier is playing chess while Davis is playing whiff-whaff.CarlottaVance said:
Can a Member State apply to re-join after it leaves?williamglenn said:
I wonder if the Commission already has a draft accession treaty ready to go to bring us back in under Article 49 minus our opt outs.CarlottaVance said:Once triggered, can Article 50 be revoked?
It was the decision of the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of the notification.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-2001_en.htm
Any country that has withdrawn from the EU may apply to re-join. It would be required to go through the accession procedure.0 -
-
Nah, even they're not as deluded as you about the project.williamglenn said:
I wonder if the Commission already has a draft accession treaty ready to go to bring us back in under Article 49 minus our opt outs.CarlottaVance said:Once triggered, can Article 50 be revoked?
It was the decision of the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of the notification.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-2001_en.htm0 -
My point was that the Dems are indignant, or more likely pretending to be, but that I rather suspect that in the reverse situation someone in the Clinton campaign - especially someone naive, like the junior Trump - would have been open to such a meeting.Jonathan said:Not just an aide. The son (and most trusted aide) of the leader.
And in the context of allegations of direct foreign intervention that may have flipped in an election.
Would I be indignant? No. I am not indignant now. Suspicious and concerned? Sure
0 -
Back in my fund manager days, this was a real hot button issue, and I heard that the Spanish government had a cunning plan to kick the can down the road. (This was 3-4 years ago.)FF43 said:
I expect somewhat the same to happen as in 2014. The referendum will carry by a substantial margin on a low turnout. Those opposed don't think the exercise is valid and will boycott it. The declaration by the Catalan government that Yes automatically results in independence is a threat to those who stay away. If you don't turn up to vote, you are choosing independence. It remains to be seen whether the threat will have an effect.rcs1000 said:
It's amazing how few polls there have been this year (3), but those there have been have shown narrow lead for Independence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017) - with the exception of the forced choice one (i.e., you're not allowed to say "I don't know", which had a narrow lead for staying in Spain.Morris_Dancer said:I was idly browsing, and it's 1.4 for Yes to independence in the Catalan referendum on Ladbrokes. Such things can, of course, take unexpected turns, but what would the near term consequences be of such a result?
My personal view is that the Catalan independence movement has made an error - not in calling for a referendum but in declaring that an out vote leads to an immediate unilateral declaration of independence. Given the technical difficulties associated with a sudden break (much greater, of course, that the repeal of the European Communities Act), I suspect this will cause a lot of otherwise pro-Independence oriented Catalans to not risk it (this time).
For that reason, I would bet against independence.
Regardless of the result, I don't expect there actually to be independence
As you probably know, the Spanish constitution currently declares the indivisibility of Spain. And polls of Catalans consistently show them preferring independence in a way that is in accordance with the Spanish constitution.
So the plan was for the Spanish government to offer Catalonia a whole country referendum on a change to the Spanish constitution which would allow Catalan independence. Polls showed Catalans massively in favour delaying the vote until after such a constitutional change.
Now, changing constitutions takes time, and the idea was to have the new constitution written about 2020, with a referendum on it in 2021 (which might not, of course, pass). The Catalans would then be free to have a referendum on independence in (say) 2023, by which time their urge to separate might be behind them.
Just a thought.0 -
That gives Davis the advantage in a game of whiff-whaff.williamglenn said:
Barnier is playing chess while Davis is playing whiff-whaff.CarlottaVance said:
Can a Member State apply to re-join after it leaves?williamglenn said:
I wonder if the Commission already has a draft accession treaty ready to go to bring us back in under Article 49 minus our opt outs.CarlottaVance said:Once triggered, can Article 50 be revoked?
It was the decision of the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of the notification.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-2001_en.htm
Any country that has withdrawn from the EU may apply to re-join. It would be required to go through the accession procedure.0 -
0
-
I understand. It's a murky business. If it was Chelsea Clinton speaking to a Russian equivalent, I think the Republicans would have something to say.Richard_Nabavi said:
My point was that the Dems are indignant, or more likely pretending to be, but that I rather suspect that in the reverse situation someone in the Clinton campaign - especially someone naive, like the junior Trump - would have been open to such a meeting.Jonathan said:Not just an aide. The son (and most trusted aide) of the leader.
And in the context of allegations of direct foreign intervention that may have flipped in an election.
Would I be indignant? No. I am not indignant now. Suspicious and concerned? Sure
Personally, I find the whole thing depressing. Together the state of UK politics, I can't recall politics in general being in a more miserable, broken condition.
It's probably a good idea to switch off for about 10 years.0 -
.. in which case they would also be guilty of dealing with an unfriendly foreign country and would have to face the consequences.Richard_Nabavi said:
My point was that the Dems are indignant, or more likely pretending to be, but that I rather suspect that in the reverse situation someone in the Clinton campaign - especially someone naive, like the junior Trump - would have been open to such a meeting.Jonathan said:Not just an aide. The son (and most trusted aide) of the leader.
And in the context of allegations of direct foreign intervention that may have flipped in an election.
Would I be indignant? No. I am not indignant now. Suspicious and concerned? Sure0 -
Davis is playing with 10 billion pieceswilliamglenn said:
Barnier is playing chess while Davis is playing whiff-whaff.CarlottaVance said:
Can a Member State apply to re-join after it leaves?williamglenn said:
I wonder if the Commission already has a draft accession treaty ready to go to bring us back in under Article 49 minus our opt outs.CarlottaVance said:Once triggered, can Article 50 be revoked?
It was the decision of the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of the notification.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-2001_en.htm
Any country that has withdrawn from the EU may apply to re-join. It would be required to go through the accession procedure.0 -
Come to mummy.williamglenn said:The SPD collapse continues.
https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/8851382951932600320 -
On topic, I can't see the Republicans impeaching Donald Trump unless he's caught on film giving Vladimir Putin the nuclear codes. Even then, he'd have his defenders.0
-
Twenty years after losing all of their Scottish representation, the Conservative revival in Scotland kicked into gear, with 13 MPs returned to the House of Commons. Nevertheless, be wary of explaining this as a small-c conservative revival, or of Scotland becoming a ‘conservative’ country. The factors behind the revival – particularly in the North-East – look to be more Unionist than conservative, with Indyref2 and Brexit, as well as SNP governing competence all significant factors. And while the constitution remains the game in Scottish politics, this might serve Ruth Davidson’s party well. But if we return to politics based more on socio-economic issues, particularly if the ‘Corbyn surge’ reaches this far north, where does that leave the Scottish Conservatives?
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/explaining-conservative-revival-scotland/0 -
The point blank refusal of the Spanish government to discuss the issue seems untenable ultimately. For their part the independence parties don't have the public support to force the issue by informal means. 51% support is not enough to force thorough a proxy vote. The amount of support you do need is fluid - maybe two thirds or more. It's not clear they even have 50%.rcs1000 said:
Back in my fund manager days, this was a real hot button issue, and I heard that the Spanish government had a cunning plan to kick the can down the road. (This was 3-4 years ago.)FF43 said:
I expect somewhat the same to happen as in 2014. The referendum will carry by a substantial margin on a low turnout. Those opposed don't think the exercise is valid and will boycott it. The declaration by the Catalan government that Yes automatically results in independence is a threat to those who stay away. If you don't turn up to vote, you are choosing independence. It remains to be seen whether the threat will have an effect.rcs1000 said:
It's amazing how few polls there have been this year (3), but those there have been have shown narrow lead for Independence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017) - with the exception of the forced choice one (i.e., you're not allowed to say "I don't know", which had a narrow lead for staying in Spain.Morris_Dancer said:I was idly browsing, and it's 1.4 for Yes to independence in the Catalan referendum on Ladbrokes. Such things can, of course, take unexpected turns, but what would the near term consequences be of such a result?
My ... it (this time).
For that reason, I would bet against independence.
Regardless of the result, I don't expect there actually to be independence
As you probably know, the Spanish constitution currently declares the indivisibility of Spain. And polls of Catalans consistently show them preferring independence in a way that is in accordance with the Spanish constitution.
So the plan was for the Spanish government to offer Catalonia a whole country referendum on a change to the Spanish constitution which would allow Catalan independence. Polls showed Catalans massively in favour delaying the vote until after such a constitutional change.
Now, changing constitutions takes time, and the idea was to have the new constitution written about 2020, with a referendum on it in 2021 (which might not, of course, pass). The Catalans would then be free to have a referendum on independence in (say) 2023, by which time their urge to separate might be behind them.
Just a thought.0 -
I think it's a hell of a stretch to claim that the son of a candidate naively agreeing to hear what a Russian lawyer has to say is a crime, especially when (as far as we know) nothing actually came of it. The other allegations about possible involvement with Russia look more substantial.logical_song said:.. in which case they would also be guilty of dealing with an unfriendly foreign country and would have to face the consequences.
0 -
The majority of people don't hate him619 said:
He also doesn't seem to like the hatred of him from the majority of peoplecurrystar said:
I think he hates being President. Its not like running your own companyrcs1000 said:
I think the biggest risk to Trump is his health. He looks to have put on about 10 kilos and 10 years since he became President just six months ago. He's also at an age when the risk of medical issues starts to grow significantly.Ishmael_Z said:He will serve the rest of this term, then step down.
Now, is it a 50% chance that he fails to complete his first term due to health issues? Nope. But it's probably 25% or so.0 -
Unless they think it's in their political interests, of course. At the moment, the Trump presidency is proving a weird experience: he's embarrassingly childish, but in concrete terms he hasn't (from the GOP point of view) wrecked anything yet. The unpopular/crazy things the administration has done have mostly been ones which have quite a lot of support amongst GOP congressmen.AlastairMeeks said:On topic, I can't see the Republicans impeaching Donald Trump unless he's caught on film giving Vladimir Putin the nuclear codes. Even then, he'd have his defenders.
0 -
He hasn't done much of anything, yet.Richard_Nabavi said:At the moment, the Trump presidency is proving a weird experience: he's embarrassingly childish, but in concrete terms he hasn't (from the GOP point of view) wrecked anything yet.
0 -
Apart from sliding past ethanol subsidy reform I've been pleased with his EPA changes.Scott_P said:
He hasn't done much of anything, yet.Richard_Nabavi said:At the moment, the Trump presidency is proving a weird experience: he's embarrassingly childish, but in concrete terms he hasn't (from the GOP point of view) wrecked anything yet.
Hard to make substantial progress when the Dems are stalling nominees. At this rate of of up/down votes it will take just over 4 years for all his nominees to get to their desks. Which is course is the obstructionists' plan.0 -
Now who's being naive?Richard_Nabavi said:
I think it's a hell of a stretch to claim that the son of a candidate naively agreeing to hear what a Russian lawyer has to say is a crime, especially when (as far as we know) nothing actually came of it. The other allegations about possible involvement with Russia look more substantial.logical_song said:.. in which case they would also be guilty of dealing with an unfriendly foreign country and would have to face the consequences.
"agreeing to hear what a Russian lawyer has to say" It was a Russian Government attorney.
From http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/07/politics/donald-trump-jr-full-emails/
"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump"0 -
Republicans did the same to Obama.GeoffM said:
Apart from sliding past ethanol subsidy reform I've been pleased with his EPA changes.Scott_P said:
He hasn't done much of anything, yet.Richard_Nabavi said:At the moment, the Trump presidency is proving a weird experience: he's embarrassingly childish, but in concrete terms he hasn't (from the GOP point of view) wrecked anything yet.
Hard to make substantial progress when the Dems are stalling nominees. At this rate of of up/down votes it will take just over 4 years for all his nominees to get to their desks. Which is course is the obstructionists' plan.0 -
Internationally they do. His approval rating in the US are well below water as well.freetochoose said:
The majority of people don't hate him619 said:
He also doesn't seem to like the hatred of him from the majority of peoplecurrystar said:
I think he hates being President. Its not like running your own companyrcs1000 said:
I think the biggest risk to Trump is his health. He looks to have put on about 10 kilos and 10 years since he became President just six months ago. He's also at an age when the risk of medical issues starts to grow significantly.Ishmael_Z said:He will serve the rest of this term, then step down.
Now, is it a 50% chance that he fails to complete his first term due to health issues? Nope. But it's probably 25% or so.
0 -
I don't think he's done anything of very much from a government point of view. Most of his time has been spent on trying to replace the Affordable Care Act with the American Care Act. The real pity about this process is that the reform that he could have (and should have) made during this process would have been to have gotten Medicaid and Medicare negotiating drug prices. Instead all that is happening is that - in 2023 or thereabouts - a bunch of people will lose healthcare coverage.Richard_Nabavi said:
Unless they think it's in their political interests, of course. At the moment, the Trump presidency is proving a weird experience: he's embarrassingly childish, but in concrete terms he hasn't (from the GOP point of view) wrecked anything yet. The unpopular/crazy things the administration has done have mostly been ones which have quite a lot of support amongst GOP congressmen.AlastairMeeks said:On topic, I can't see the Republicans impeaching Donald Trump unless he's caught on film giving Vladimir Putin the nuclear codes. Even then, he'd have his defenders.
Most of the Donald's time seems to have involved tweeting about celebrities having face lifts.0 -
So, exactly like a hypothetical example of someone in the Obama administration offering to tip off someone associated with the Labour Party about some alleged dirt on David Cameron, before the 2015 election. This really isn't (in itself, at least) a big deal, especially since, as I said, nothing seems to have come of it.logical_song said:
Now who's being naive?Richard_Nabavi said:
I think it's a hell of a stretch to claim that the son of a candidate naively agreeing to hear what a Russian lawyer has to say is a crime, especially when (as far as we know) nothing actually came of it. The other allegations about possible involvement with Russia look more substantial.logical_song said:.. in which case they would also be guilty of dealing with an unfriendly foreign country and would have to face the consequences.
"agreeing to hear what a Russian lawyer has to say" It was a Russian Government attorney.
From http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/07/politics/donald-trump-jr-full-emails/
"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump"
I'm just looking at this dispassionately, and I just don't see that (based on what we know so far) there's much to get fussed over. That doesn't necessarily mean people won't get fussed over it, of course.0 -
Are they sanctions against the UK from the USA?Richard_Nabavi said:
So, exactly like a hypothetical example of someone in the Obama administration offering to tip off someone associated with the Labour Party about some alleged dirt on David Cameron, before the 2015 election. This really isn't (in itself, at least) a big deal, especially since, as I said, nothing seems to have come of it.logical_song said:
Now who's being naive?Richard_Nabavi said:
I think it's a hell of a stretch to claim that the son of a candidate naively agreeing to hear what a Russian lawyer has to say is a crime, especially when (as far as we know) nothing actually came of it. The other allegations about possible involvement with Russia look more substantial.logical_song said:.. in which case they would also be guilty of dealing with an unfriendly foreign country and would have to face the consequences.
"agreeing to hear what a Russian lawyer has to say" It was a Russian Government attorney.
From http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/07/politics/donald-trump-jr-full-emails/
"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump"
I'm just looking at this dispassionately, and I just don't see that (based on what we know so far) there's much to get fussed over. That doesn't necessarily mean people won't get fussed over it, of course.
Also, the Russians were willing to supply it for nothing? He admits to 'talking about' the adoption act being dropped, which is related to the US sanctions against Russia
And of course, the Dems haven't done anything like this, so it seems straw man esque to say the Dems would have done the same, Would they?0 -
Scotland's Andy Murray crashes out of Wimbledon0
-
Well, if the Trump campaign offered something in return, that would be different. But, as I said, based on what we currently know, Donald Tump Jr agreed to a meeting in the hope of hearing some dirt on Hillary, which came to nothing.619 said:Are they sanctions against the UK from the USA?
Also, the Russians were willing to supply it for nothing? He admits to 'talking about' the adoption act being dropped, which is related to the US sanctions against Russia
And of course, the Dems haven't done anything like this, so it seems straw man esque to say the Dems would have done the same, Would they?0 -
From what I've read, it's illegal under US campaign finance laws. That automatically makes it a big deal.Richard_Nabavi said:
So, exactly like a hypothetical example of someone in the Obama administration offering to tip off someone associated with the Labour Party about some alleged dirt on David Cameron, before the 2015 election. This really isn't (in itself, at least) a big deal, especially since, as I said, nothing seems to have come of it.logical_song said:
Now who's being naive?Richard_Nabavi said:
I think it's a hell of a stretch to claim that the son of a candidate naively agreeing to hear what a Russian lawyer has to say is a crime, especially when (as far as we know) nothing actually came of it. The other allegations about possible involvement with Russia look more substantial.logical_song said:.. in which case they would also be guilty of dealing with an unfriendly foreign country and would have to face the consequences.
"agreeing to hear what a Russian lawyer has to say" It was a Russian Government attorney.
From http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/07/politics/donald-trump-jr-full-emails/
"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump"
I'm just looking at this dispassionately, and I just don't see that (based on what we know so far) there's much to get fussed over. That doesn't necessarily mean people won't get fussed over it, of course.0 -
that's not a supportable assertion at this pointRichard_Nabavi said:which came to nothing.
0 -
The legal prohibition is against soliciting unlawful contributions or donations from foreign nationals. Obviously it would be no defence to say that he solicited an unlawful contribution but nothing came of it.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think it's a hell of a stretch to claim that the son of a candidate naively agreeing to hear what a Russian lawyer has to say is a crime, especially when (as far as we know) nothing actually came of it. The other allegations about possible involvement with Russia look more substantial.logical_song said:.. in which case they would also be guilty of dealing with an unfriendly foreign country and would have to face the consequences.
Here is some useful information about what US law says:
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal0 -
I think the OBR has just stuffed Damian Green on "no deal".Big win for Emily Thornberry.0
-
Interesting use of "unilaterally" and "unilateral". That implies the EU does believe Art. 50 to be revocable by agreement between the parties.CarlottaVance said:Once triggered, can Article 50 be revoked?
It was the decision of the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of the notification.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-2001_en.htm0 -
I'd agree with all that. We also have to look at the track record. In 228 years of the presidency, only two have been impeached and neither was convicted (though Johnson came perilously close). Nine presidents have left before the end of their term and while Trump doesn't look terribly healthy, I wouldn't be betting on actuarial grounds. Likewise, the secret service seems pretty good these days and presidents travel surrounded by a wall of steel and bulletproof glass. Only Nixon stands out as the exception, and as the one president who probably would have been impeached had his case run its course.edmundintokyo said:So it's kind of amazing that he's still in office - someone was saying it's like the plot of House of Cards with the cast of The Veep - but you have to look at the specific ways this can happen:
1) He goes of his own accord. This would be an uncharacteristic admission of failure, and he'd lose the ability to pardon his friends and family for breaking the law.
2) He is toppled by his own cabinet. Hard to see, outside a Trump administration they'd be largely unemployable.
3) He is toppled by a Republican Senate. Not quite impossible, but the base would not be happy at this kind of display of cuckery.
4) The Republicans lose the Senate, and the Dems impeach him. Very hard to see, it's a horrible map.
Add this to the general law of politics that things generally don't happen, and the value is with "remain".
On that basis, if the allegations are serious enough, I could easily see the GOP senators voting to convict Trump - if, and it's a big if, the timing fits. Go too early and his supporters will yell 'coup' and could cause mayhem in the mid-terms; go too late and people will ask why the decision isn't being left to the electorate in primaries or, if he's reselected, the general election. The window for an impeachment is most open in 2019. Outside of that, it really would take a slam-dunk case to convict him and while Trump being Trump, we can't rule that out, it's not close to an evens bet.0 -
The law is very clearly about money or things of monetary value, and the attempt to argue that damaging information is a thing of monetary value is tenuous to the point of being ridiculous. The claim is nonsense and even if it wasn't, the apparent strategy of throwing jr to the wolves and then pardoning him is a further line of defence for Sr.Chris said:
The legal prohibition is against soliciting unlawful contributions or donations from foreign nationals. Obviously it would be no defence to say that he solicited an unlawful contribution but nothing came of it.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think it's a hell of a stretch to claim that the son of a candidate naively agreeing to hear what a Russian lawyer has to say is a crime, especially when (as far as we know) nothing actually came of it. The other allegations about possible involvement with Russia look more substantial.logical_song said:.. in which case they would also be guilty of dealing with an unfriendly foreign country and would have to face the consequences.
Here is some useful information about what US law says:
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal0 -
As I said, a hell of a stretch:Chris said:The legal prohibition is against soliciting unlawful contributions or donations from foreign nationals. Obviously it would be no defence to say that he solicited an unlawful contribution but nothing came of it.
Here is some useful information about what US law says:
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal
A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
Offering information is hardly a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value. By the interpretation that Trump's enemies are trying to put on it, the Guardian writing a pro-Obama article before the 2012 election would have been a federal offence. In fact, didn't the Guardian actively drum up canvassing support for the Dems?0 -
Bullshit619 said:
Republicans did the same to Obama.GeoffM said:
Apart from sliding past ethanol subsidy reform I've been pleased with his EPA changes.Scott_P said:
He hasn't done much of anything, yet.Richard_Nabavi said:At the moment, the Trump presidency is proving a weird experience: he's embarrassingly childish, but in concrete terms he hasn't (from the GOP point of view) wrecked anything yet.
Hard to make substantial progress when the Dems are stalling nominees. At this rate of of up/down votes it will take just over 4 years for all his nominees to get to their desks. Which is course is the obstructionists' plan.0 -
I feel confident in saying that any 'normal' politician in the US would be very very cautious about taking a meeting with the Russian government where they were offered information to damage their opponent. It's a crazy risk to take.619 said:
And of course, the Dems haven't done anything like this, so it seems straw man esque to say the Dems would have done the same, Would they?0 -
@janemerrick23: Andy Murray hasn't won #Wimbledon since Theresa May became Prime Minister #justsayingTheScreamingEagles said:Scotland's Andy Murray crashes out of Wimbledon
0 -
Supreme CourtGeoffM said:
Bullshit619 said:
Republicans did the same to Obama.GeoffM said:
Apart from sliding past ethanol subsidy reform I've been pleased with his EPA changes.Scott_P said:
He hasn't done much of anything, yet.Richard_Nabavi said:At the moment, the Trump presidency is proving a weird experience: he's embarrassingly childish, but in concrete terms he hasn't (from the GOP point of view) wrecked anything yet.
Hard to make substantial progress when the Dems are stalling nominees. At this rate of of up/down votes it will take just over 4 years for all his nominees to get to their desks. Which is course is the obstructionists' plan.0 -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4689372/PIERS-MORGAN-Thanks-Don-Jr-smoke-burst-flames.html
Lickspittle Piers is off the Trump train0 -
British pride resting now with an Australian girl of Hungarian parentage who passed a citizenship test.... ;-)TheScreamingEagles said:Scotland's Andy Murray crashes out of Wimbledon
0 -
I agree. I was laying 2017 exit very happily.david_herdson said:
I'd agree with all that. We also have to look at the track record. In 228 years of the presidency, only two have been impeached and neither was convicted (though Johnson came perilously close). Nine presidents have left before the end of their term and while Trump doesn't look terribly healthy, I wouldn't be betting on actuarial grounds. Likewise, the secret service seems pretty good these days and presidents travel surrounded by a wall of steel and bulletproof glass. Only Nixon stands out as the exception, and as the one president who probably would have been impeached had his case run its course.edmundintokyo said:So it's kind of amazing that he's still in office - someone was saying it's like the plot of House of Cards with the cast of The Veep - but you have to look at the specific ways this can happen:
1) He goes of his own accord. This would be an uncharacteristic admission of failure, and he'd lose the ability to pardon his friends and family for breaking the law.
2) He is toppled by his own cabinet. Hard to see, outside a Trump administration they'd be largely unemployable.
3) He is toppled by a Republican Senate. Not quite impossible, but the base would not be happy at this kind of display of cuckery.
4) The Republicans lose the Senate, and the Dems impeach him. Very hard to see, it's a horrible map.
Add this to the general law of politics that things generally don't happen, and the value is with "remain".
On that basis, if the allegations are serious enough, I could easily see the GOP senators voting to convict Trump - if, and it's a big if, the timing fits. Go too early and his supporters will yell 'coup' and could cause mayhem in the mid-terms; go too late and people will ask why the decision isn't being left to the electorate in primaries or, if he's reselected, the general election. The window for an impeachment is most open in 2019. Outside of that, it really would take a slam-dunk case to convict him and while Trump being Trump, we can't rule that out, it's not close to an evens bet.
The value now is in laying 2018 exit at 4.7 I think... It will be the same Congress up until November, and even then it would take time to go after him. And it's unlikely that they would have the votes as you said.0 -
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/GeoffM said:
Bullshit619 said:
Republicans did the same to Obama.GeoffM said:
Apart from sliding past ethanol subsidy reform I've been pleased with his EPA changes.Scott_P said:
He hasn't done much of anything, yet.Richard_Nabavi said:At the moment, the Trump presidency is proving a weird experience: he's embarrassingly childish, but in concrete terms he hasn't (from the GOP point of view) wrecked anything yet.
Hard to make substantial progress when the Dems are stalling nominees. At this rate of of up/down votes it will take just over 4 years for all his nominees to get to their desks. Which is course is the obstructionists' plan.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/277774-gop-blocks-obama-judicial-nominees-amid-court-fight0 -
Below water doesn't begin to describe how bad they are.619 said:
Internationally they do. His approval rating in the US are well below water as well.freetochoose said:
The majority of people don't hate him619 said:
He also doesn't seem to like the hatred of him from the majority of peoplecurrystar said:
I think he hates being President. Its not like running your own companyrcs1000 said:
I think the biggest risk to Trump is his health. He looks to have put on about 10 kilos and 10 years since he became President just six months ago. He's also at an age when the risk of medical issues starts to grow significantly.Ishmael_Z said:He will serve the rest of this term, then step down.
Now, is it a 50% chance that he fails to complete his first term due to health issues? Nope. But it's probably 25% or so.
Presidential approval ratings in July of first year (elected presidents only)Donald Trump 38 3-9 July Barack Obama 57 Jul 2009 George W. Bush 57 Jul 2001 Bill Clinton 43 Jul 1993 George H.W. Bush 66 Jul 1989 Ronald Reagan 59 Jul 1981 Jimmy Carter 65 Jul 1977 Richard Nixon 62 Jul 1969 John Kennedy 75 Jul 1961 Dwight Eisenhower 71 Jul 1953
Only Clinton comes close at this stage of a presidency, which may give some pointer the the mid-term elections.0 -
I'd be careful about 2018 -- the midterms might show Trump is a drag on GOP candidates in which case he is toast. Or they might not. Keep an eye on the polls imo.rkrkrk said:
I agree. I was laying 2017 exit very happily.david_herdson said:
I'd agree with all that. We also have to look at the track record. In 228 years of the presidency, only two have been impeached and neither was convicted (though Johnson came perilously close). Nine presidents have left before the end of their term and while Trump doesn't look terribly healthy, I wouldn't be betting on actuarial grounds. Likewise, the secret service seems pretty good these days and presidents travel surrounded by a wall of steel and bulletproof glass. Only Nixon stands out as the exception, and as the one president who probably would have been impeached had his case run its course.edmundintokyo said:So it's kind of amazing that he's still in office - someone was saying it's like the plot of House of Cards with the cast of The Veep - but you have to look at the specific ways this can happen:
1) He goes of his own accord. This would be an uncharacteristic admission of failure, and he'd lose the ability to pardon his friends and family for breaking the law.
2) He is toppled by his own cabinet. Hard to see, outside a Trump administration they'd be largely unemployable.
3) He is toppled by a Republican Senate. Not quite impossible, but the base would not be happy at this kind of display of cuckery.
4) The Republicans lose the Senate, and the Dems impeach him. Very hard to see, it's a horrible map.
Add this to the general law of politics that things generally don't happen, and the value is with "remain".
On that basis, if the allegations are serious enough, I could easily see the GOP senators voting to convict Trump - if, and it's a big if, the timing fits. Go too early and his supporters will yell 'coup' and could cause mayhem in the mid-terms; go too late and people will ask why the decision isn't being left to the electorate in primaries or, if he's reselected, the general election. The window for an impeachment is most open in 2019. Outside of that, it really would take a slam-dunk case to convict him and while Trump being Trump, we can't rule that out, it's not close to an evens bet.
The value now is in laying 2018 exit at 4.7 I think... It will be the same Congress up until November, and even then it would take time to go after him. And it's unlikely that they would have the votes as you said.0 -
All is well in the sporting world, a Yorkshireman is in charge of the England cricket instead of a Southern softie.Bob__Sykes said:
British pride resting now with an Australian girl of Hungarian parentage who passed a citizenship test.... ;-)TheScreamingEagles said:Scotland's Andy Murray crashes out of Wimbledon
0 -
Well, the law says "thing of value". It doesn't specify monetary value. You claim that's clearly implied, and no doubt that would be Trump's line of defence.Ishmael_Z said:
The law is very clearly about money or things of monetary value, and the attempt to argue that damaging information is a thing of monetary value is tenuous to the point of being ridiculous.Chris said:
The legal prohibition is against soliciting unlawful contributions or donations from foreign nationals. Obviously it would be no defence to say that he solicited an unlawful contribution but nothing came of it.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think it's a hell of a stretch to claim that the son of a candidate naively agreeing to hear what a Russian lawyer has to say is a crime, especially when (as far as we know) nothing actually came of it. The other allegations about possible involvement with Russia look more substantial.logical_song said:.. in which case they would also be guilty of dealing with an unfriendly foreign country and would have to face the consequences.
Here is some useful information about what US law says:
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal
But I don't think it's anywhere near as clear as you are making out. This Slate article quotes four legal opinions, only one of which expresses doubt that the law would cover valuable information. And even that opinion is qualified by the statement that "I could imagine the statutory argument that “thing of value” can extend to damaging oppo research."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/07/donald_trump_jr_isn_t_guilty_of_treason_but_he_likely_committed_this_other.html0 -
As of June 28 Trump had nominated 178 appointees but the Senate had confirmed only 46.619 said:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-82-presidential-nominees-have-been/GeoffM said:
Bullshit619 said:
Republicans did the same to Obama.GeoffM said:
Apart from sliding past ethanol subsidy reform I've been pleased with his EPA changes.Scott_P said:
He hasn't done much of anything, yet.Richard_Nabavi said:At the moment, the Trump presidency is proving a weird experience: he's embarrassingly childish, but in concrete terms he hasn't (from the GOP point of view) wrecked anything yet.
Hard to make substantial progress when the Dems are stalling nominees. At this rate of of up/down votes it will take just over 4 years for all his nominees to get to their desks. Which is course is the obstructionists' plan.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/277774-gop-blocks-obama-judicial-nominees-amid-court-fight
Barack Obama had 183 nominees confirmed by that date in his first term.
George W. Bush had 130 confirmed.
This obstruction against nominees includes a demand for cloture filings for every nominee no matter how minor the position. This means a two-day waiting period and then another 30 hours of debate.
The 30-hour rule means it will take 4 years to fill those 400 positions. The cloture rule also allows the minority to halt other business during the 30-hour debate period so everything else stops too.
You are an idiot and a liar.-1 -
Why don't you think information is a "thing of value"? It seems an odd thing to say, on this site of all sites!Richard_Nabavi said:
As I said, a hell of a stretch:Chris said:The legal prohibition is against soliciting unlawful contributions or donations from foreign nationals. Obviously it would be no defence to say that he solicited an unlawful contribution but nothing came of it.
Here is some useful information about what US law says:
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal
A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
Offering information is hardly a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value.0 -
Yes - but they're in November.DecrepitJohnL said:
I'd be careful about 2018 -- the midterms might show Trump is a drag on GOP candidates in which case he is toast. Or they might not. Keep an eye on the polls imo.rkrkrk said:
I agree. I was laying 2017 exit very happily.david_herdson said:
I'd agree with all that. We also have to look at the track record. In 228 years of the presidency, only two have been impeached and neither was convicted (though Johnson came perilously close). Nine presidents have left before the end of their term and while Trump doesn't look terribly healthy, I wouldn't be betting on actuarial grounds. Likewise, the secret service seems pretty good these days and presidents travel surrounded by a wall of steel and bulletproof glass. Only Nixon stands out as the exception, and as the one president who probably would have been impeached had his case run its course.edmundintokyo said:So it's kind of amazing that he's still in office - someone was saying it's like the plot of House of Cards with the cast of The Veep - but you have to look at the specific ways this can happen:
1) He goes of his own accord. This would be an uncharacteristic admission of failure, and he'd lose the ability to pardon his friends and family for breaking the law.
2) He is toppled by his own cabinet. Hard to see, outside a Trump administration they'd be largely unemployable.
3) He is toppled by a Republican Senate. Not quite impossible, but the base would not be happy at this kind of display of cuckery.
4) The Republicans lose the Senate, and the Dems impeach him. Very hard to see, it's a horrible map.
Add this to the general law of politics that things generally don't happen, and the value is with "remain".
On that basis, if the allegations are serious enough, I could easily see the GOP senators voting to convict Trump - if, and it's a big if, the timing fits. Go too early and his supporters will yell 'coup' and could cause mayhem in the mid-terms; go too late and people will ask why the decision isn't being left to the electorate in primaries or, if he's reselected, the general election. The window for an impeachment is most open in 2019. Outside of that, it really would take a slam-dunk case to convict him and while Trump being Trump, we can't rule that out, it's not close to an evens bet.
The value now is in laying 2018 exit at 4.7 I think... It will be the same Congress up until November, and even then it would take time to go after him. And it's unlikely that they would have the votes as you said.
Even if it's a complete catastrophe (and it's a good map for Republicans in Senate) I don't think the new Congress can move on him that quickly.0 -
Because it is completely clear from the context that the law is referring to political donations of money or money's worth.Chris said:
Why don't you think information is a "thing of value"? It seems an odd thing to say, on this site of all sites!Richard_Nabavi said:
As I said, a hell of a stretch:Chris said:The legal prohibition is against soliciting unlawful contributions or donations from foreign nationals. Obviously it would be no defence to say that he solicited an unlawful contribution but nothing came of it.
Here is some useful information about what US law says:
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal
A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
Offering information is hardly a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value.
To put it another way, can anyone think of an example where a tip-off has been declared as a campaign donation, in the US or anywhere else?0 -
Not really. The bit of the statute you omitted, which is quoted in the article, is this:Richard_Nabavi said:
As I said, a hell of a stretch:Chris said:The legal prohibition is against soliciting unlawful contributions or donations from foreign nationals. Obviously it would be no defence to say that he solicited an unlawful contribution but nothing came of it.
Here is some useful information about what US law says:
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal
A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
Offering information is hardly a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value. By the interpretation that Trump's enemies are trying to put on it, the Guardian writing a pro-Obama article before the 2012 election would have been a federal offence. In fact, didn't the Guardian actively drum up canvassing support for the Dems?
No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by [this law].”
There's not really any dispute that he solicited such help - that's pretty clear from the email.
Don't forget this is the US, where prosecutors are quite willing to seek long jail terms for plenty of stuff we would regard as trivial.
An in any event, this is the first prima facie evidence that a US statute has been broken. I wouldn't assume that it will be the last thing to come out.0 -
He didn't solicit a contribution or donation.Nigelb said:Not really. The bit of the statute you omitted, which is quoted in the article, is this:
No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by [this law].”
There's not really any dispute that he solicited such help - that's pretty clear from the email.
Don't forget this is the US, where prosecutors are quite willing to seek long jail terms for plenty of stuff we would regard as trivial.
An in any event, this is the first prima facie evidence that a US statute has been broken. I wouldn't assume that it will be the last thing to come out.0 -
It implies that the authors of the statement believe so. The EU, being the complex beast it is, has not given a definitive ruling on whether A50 is or is not revocable, and if so, through what process. Only the ECJ has the power to do that.rpjs said:
Interesting use of "unilaterally" and "unilateral". That implies the EU does believe Art. 50 to be revocable by agreement between the parties.CarlottaVance said:Once triggered, can Article 50 be revoked?
It was the decision of the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of the notification.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-2001_en.htm
To illustrate the point, imagine the UK does revoke A50, with the agreement of the Council. Come June 2019, a UK firm refuses to abide by a Commission directive and is prosecuted. The High Court refers the matter to the ECJ, which then rules that the revocation was invalid under the Treaty and that Britain is no longer a member. What could the member states or the Commission do about it? That's not to say that they would necessarily reach that conclusion but it is to say that in the final analysis, it's judges and not politicians who will (or would) decide.0 -
He was seeking opposition research produced by the resources of the Russian state - that qualifies as a contribution under the terms of the statute.Richard_Nabavi said:
He didn't solicit a contribution or donation.Nigelb said:Not really. The bit of the statute you omitted, which is quoted in the article, is this:
No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by [this law].”
There's not really any dispute that he solicited such help - that's pretty clear from the email.
Don't forget this is the US, where prosecutors are quite willing to seek long jail terms for plenty of stuff we would regard as trivial.
An in any event, this is the first prima facie evidence that a US statute has been broken. I wouldn't assume that it will be the last thing to come out.
You make a fair point about the Guardian campaign - but is there any evidence that anyone in the Obama campaign solicited that help ?0 -
Why is that "completely clear"? Just because monetary gifts are mentioned in the same clause? I don't think an argument like that would get you very far in court.Richard_Nabavi said:
Because it is completely clear from the context that the law is referring to political donations of money or money's worth.Chris said:
Why don't you think information is a "thing of value"? It seems an odd thing to say, on this site of all sites!Richard_Nabavi said:
As I said, a hell of a stretch:Chris said:The legal prohibition is against soliciting unlawful contributions or donations from foreign nationals. Obviously it would be no defence to say that he solicited an unlawful contribution but nothing came of it.
Here is some useful information about what US law says:
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal
A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
Offering information is hardly a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value.0 -
I very much doubt that it qualifies as a contribution. If a Guardian journalist had tipped off the Clinton campaign that Trump's companies were breaking the law in some country, would that have been caught by this law? Of course not, it's beyond silly as an interpretation.Nigelb said:He was seeking opposition research produced by the resources of the Russian state - that qualifies as a contribution under the terms of the statute.
I've no idea, no one in the US was concerned one way or the other - which is the whole point.Nigelb said:You make a fair point about the Guardian campaign - but is there any evidence that anyone in the Obama campaign solicited that help ?
0 -
No, it's not the whole point.Richard_Nabavi said:
I very much doubt that it qualifies as a contribution. If a Guardian journalist had tipped off the Clinton campaign that Trump's companies were breaking the law in some country, would that have been caught by this law? Of course not, it's beyond silly as an interpretation.Nigelb said:He was seeking opposition research produced by the resources of the Russian state - that qualifies as a contribution under the terms of the statute.
I've no idea, no one in the US was concerned one way or the other - which is the whole point.Nigelb said:You make a fair point about the Guardian campaign - but is there any evidence that anyone in the Obama campaign solicited that help ?
If there was evidence of a request from the official Obama campaign soliciting foreign help in that manner, it would be a clear breach of the statute.
Whether or not the canvassing has the desired effect is pretty well irrelevant - that it was a material resource isn't really in question.0 -
Well, I am an English lawyer, not an American one, but the same broad principles of statutory interpretation apply, including that you deduce the intention of a statute by looking at the mischief which it appears to be intended to prevent, and that you resolve ambiguities in criminal statutes in favour of the defendant. Bear in mind that US lawyers are highly politicised - this lot especially by the look of it - and like to see their names in print. I think this is baloney.Chris said:
Well, the law says "thing of value". It doesn't specify monetary value. You claim that's clearly implied, and no doubt that would be Trump's line of defence.Ishmael_Z said:
The law is very clearly about money or things of monetary value, and the attempt to argue that damaging information is a thing of monetary value is tenuous to the point of being ridiculous.Chris said:
The legal prohibition is against soliciting unlawful contributions or donations from foreign nationals. Obviously it would be no defence to say that he solicited an unlawful contribution but nothing came of it.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think it's a hell of a stretch to claim that the son of a candidate naively agreeing to hear what a Russian lawyer has to say is a crime, especially when (as far as we know) nothing actually came of it. The other allegations about possible involvement with Russia look more substantial.logical_song said:.. in which case they would also be guilty of dealing with an unfriendly foreign country and would have to face the consequences.
Here is some useful information about what US law says:
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal
But I don't think it's anywhere near as clear as you are making out. This Slate article quotes four legal opinions, only one of which expresses doubt that the law would cover valuable information. And even that opinion is qualified by the statement that "I could imagine the statutory argument that “thing of value” can extend to damaging oppo research."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/07/donald_trump_jr_isn_t_guilty_of_treason_but_he_likely_committed_this_other.html0 -
Well, at least they set out a bit of their working, rather than just saying "clearly X" or "clearly Y".Ishmael_Z said:
Well, I am an English lawyer, not an American one, but the same broad principles of statutory interpretation apply, including that you deduce the intention of a statute by looking at the mischief which it appears to be intended to prevent, and that you resolve ambiguities in criminal statutes in favour of the defendant. Bear in mind that US lawyers are highly politicised - this lot especially by the look of it - and like to see their names in print. I think this is baloney.Chris said:
Well, the law says "thing of value". It doesn't specify monetary value. You claim that's clearly implied, and no doubt that would be Trump's line of defence.Ishmael_Z said:
The law is very clearly about money or things of monetary value, and the attempt to argue that damaging information is a thing of monetary value is tenuous to the point of being ridiculous.Chris said:
The legal prohibition is against soliciting unlawful contributions or donations from foreign nationals. Obviously it would be no defence to say that he solicited an unlawful contribution but nothing came of it.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think it's a hell of a stretch to claim that the son of a candidate naively agreeing to hear what a Russian lawyer has to say is a crime, especially when (as far as we know) nothing actually came of it. The other allegations about possible involvement with Russia look more substantial.logical_song said:.. in which case they would also be guilty of dealing with an unfriendly foreign country and would have to face the consequences.
Here is some useful information about what US law says:
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal
But I don't think it's anywhere near as clear as you are making out. This Slate article quotes four legal opinions, only one of which expresses doubt that the law would cover valuable information. And even that opinion is qualified by the statement that "I could imagine the statutory argument that “thing of value” can extend to damaging oppo research."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/07/donald_trump_jr_isn_t_guilty_of_treason_but_he_likely_committed_this_other.html0
