Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Back Trump to be impeached in 2019 at 18-1
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Back Trump to be impeached in 2019 at 18-1
Donald Trump is an unusual president. Unusual in the same way that a triceratops turning up at Crufts would be unusual. He is not merely of a different species; his whole manner and understanding of the role are utterly alien to DC.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The fact that they are doing so many launches, and that this one is from an unexpected location so indicating a whole new site that was previously unknown, can't be good news either. Must indicate a very active programme and the testing surely increases the rate at which they advance.
I'd assumed that a missile that could strike much of the continental USA would be a game-changer in terms of the American response. I don't like the idea of my theory being put to the test ...
I have a vague awareness that some experimental heart surgeries have to deal with very small sample sizes (in fact I guess they all do, when you first start doing them), with careful statistical rules for discontinuing the procedure if the results to date indicate it's problematic, and obviously there are problems double-blinding heart surgery. But the rarer the condition, the lower the power even the largest studies could attain, and even moderate effect sizes would struggle for statistical significance.
(The hypothetical scenario I was suggesting involved basic research, rather than a clinical trial to seek approval for a purported treatment. Does that make a difference? If all you want to find out to understand the illness a bit more is "Does doing X result in Y for patients with condition Z?" and Z is so rare that we seldom get the opportunity to try X out - in fact by the time we do, we've possibly moved on from wanting to try out X1 to wanting to see the effects of X2 or X3 instead - at what stage do the ethics regulators say "you can't justify your interventions since your research programme simply won't be able to produce a useful evidence base - you will always lack data points, and you can't demonstrate that the X you are trying is likely to have a clinical benefit"?)
As for Ireland, their ire should be directed towards the EU, surely? The UK and Ireland both want the same thing.
From an ethics perspective in ultra orphan, a theoretical rationale for why it might work is a good starting point ("I hope it might cross the blood brain barrier" is not sufficient)
There is a significant chance of a further baby being affected, as this is a mitochondrial disease mutation. Testing on an animal model in order to prepare for treatment from birth for the next child, before the disease advances to the terminal phase, might be a reasonable next approach.
Mitochondrial DNA mutations do lend themselves to another approach, as the DNA is not in the nucleus. That would be to use an embryo with three parents, a maternal ova, paternal sperm and the mitochondria from an egg donor. There is some interest in this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18393682
Trump's behaviour is increasingly incoherent and bizarre, though not yet to the point that section 4 of the 25th amendment would be suitable:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/25th-amendment-used-remove-trump-215814401.html
To my mind the betting value is on Trump not completing his first term at 2.06 with Betfair, and I also have some on a 2018 exit there.
Trump is turning America into a laughing stock. When even the boyscouts turn against you, surely the endgame is underway. Putin has managed to damage the USA with his trolls far more than Korea with its missiles.
McCain may well have saved the midterms for the GOP who would otherwise face millions of voters who'd just lost (or were about to lose) their health cover,
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/29/us_voting_machines_hacking/
Not that Russian or other state-sponsored hackers would be so unsporting.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/07/north-korea-trump-missile/535305/
Remember, this is essentially 1950s technology, whose development must be made considerably easier with modern computing resources, so any sufficiently determined state can get there.
(One thing I didn't know was that the Chinese used oak to construct the heat shields of their re-entry vehicles...)
Hmm. I'm not sure about this. Long-ish odds, but isn't Trump likelier to make a deal to not run again?
why didnt Southam Observer warn us ?
http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/2017/07/28/01008-20170728ARTFIG00262-secheresse-la-france-atteint-la-cote-d-alerte.php
It doesn't require the Senate to vote for his removal. There is currently a 33% chance that Democrats will gain a majority in the House in 2018 (according to the betting on Betfair)
I think a good bet is to lay Trump (at 3.5) as next President in 2020. He is currently favourite ahead of Pence, Warren and Kamala Harris.
To become President he needs to:
a) actually want a second term (he's not enjoying it, he's not getting the adulation he craves)
b) win the primaries (he's been sussed out. The same shtick isn't going to be as successful)
c) win the election (he's not up against Hillary).
I make that 50%x30%x30% i.e 4.5% chance.
Uni fees heading for more success
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jul/29/graduates-anger-nightmare-student-loans-company-complaints
the only thing in N America which will make us all disappear is the Yellowsrone caldera
assuming of course the Palma tsunami doesnt get us first
RTE ( Irish state broadcaster ) having one of those BBC moments
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gender-pay-gap-now-damaging-morale-at-rt-as-crisis-deepens-35979084.html
The Republican base is another matter.
McCain is an old man and an ill man and no longer cares what other people think. The repeal is a dog that he is willing to treat as such. He has done his party a favour.
I think the point about filibusters is that they could ALL be abolished but any party doing so would be doing so for short term gain at the expense of long term loss of power when in a minority. Because clearly any majoritarian party is never going to voluntarily restate it.
Jezza seems to be the first politician to realise the generational injustice, and the need to ameliorate it, even if writing off all the debt is not an easy commitment to fund. In another five years it becomes even harder to write off. This is a ticking time bomb.
were simply pretending this is a loan when all it is is deferred taxation which is going to hit todays twenty year olds twice. Once as a loan and then again when they have to pay for the loan defaults in their 50s.
The whole SLC system is PFI reborn, an expensive way to keep debt off balance sheet, that will come back to haunt us all. It is characteristic of the short termism that our treasury follows.
I hate debt with a vengeance. It is the chains that prevent us from realising our potential.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/ch6.htm
Oak as a heat shield is actually a reasonable suggestion. Heavy woods char, and the charred material is as good an insulator as the wood. When the charred material is blown away, it reveals more oak and the process continues. It's heavy, though.
The Russians had massive trouble developing heat shields for their early missiles, and the technology lagged severely behind their rockets (mainly as they had no way of testing materials without actually flying them, unlike, AIUI, the Americans who could test on the ground).
Am off to the SW next week and anticipate seeing semi-desert instead of green rolling hills. The recent rain has saved our southern British bacon for the moment, but things are not great here either drought-wise. Another dry winter and we'll be in trouble.
Asking for a friend, of course....
Section 4 of the 25th amendment is the provision, but that is also not straight forward.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, they were Donald Trump voters, and the message of economic nationalism really appealed to them. Bringing jobs back and restricting low-skilled immigration from Mexico and LatAm were the key issues for them.
But they also benefitted hugely from Obamacare. Their son, in his early 20s, was beaten up and left with lingering health issues. Before Obamacare, they ended up mortgaging themselves to the hilt to pay his bills, because these were pre-existing conditions, and they couldn't afford insurance. If Obamacare had simply been repealed, it would would have been an utter disaster for them. I doubt they would have voted Republican again.
Donald Trump doesn't realise it, but John McCain may have saved him.
And good article by David, as usual. I don't think it will happen, but those odds are jolly tempting.
Firstly, there is the question of the increasing polarisation of the US. The coasts - Seattle to San Diego, and Boston to Key West - have been beneficiaries of globalisation. They are full of tech and media companies, graduates, high house prices and prosperity. The Great Flyover, with a few exceptions, is suffering. Trump's policies (with the exception of Obamacare repeal), for the first time, have prioritised those in the Great Flyover. We will likely continue to see the divides between the coast and the centre rising: especially at is the coasts who (right now) pay all the bills.
Secondly, will Donald Trump's economic policies actually work for those in the Great Flyover?
Also, bets that people at the top stand down voluntarily when things get difficult are almost always bad, cf. May, Corbyn, Clinton. The only recent counter-example I can think of is Hollande.
I really struggle to see a way out for America. And that is such a huge shame. The world needs a self-confident, outward-looking US. The alternatives are not hugely appealing. Especially from a Brexit UK perspective.
I think we can safely say he is mad already and has been for some time.
This is a presidency that is going to test the republic's fabled constitution to near destruction.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/29/china-and-russia-have-responsibility-for-north-korea-nuclear-threat-says-us
We are all Iraq-scarred, but the thing about Saddam was that he turned out not to have the WMD that many of us thought. North Korea clearly does, and is working towards being able to deliver them pretty much anywhere. Nor is it obvious that the leadership is rational enough not to do so on a whim, although to be fair they've not actually attacked anyone for 60 years.
I really hate to flirt with interventionism again, and I'm not in a position to influence anyone's thinking about it, but isn't there a case for invasion before the threat becomes completely ready?
Due to irritating and unexpected circumstances the pre-qualifying article might be delayed (or I might have to rush it instead).
The split was also very marked in the POTUS at lower levels. The county level declarations were very split too. In Flyover states like Indiana or Kentucky the cities were blue, while in places like Pennsylvania that were swing states, outside the Philly conurbation it was solid Republican red.
Brexit is substantially the same culture war between those who see globalisation as a benefit, and those who see it as a threat. The hopes of free marketeer Brexiters are either going to be dashed, or annoy the core protectionist insular Brexit vote. Ultimately that is why Brexit is a blind alley. It will aggravate the culture war rather than ameliorate it. Where America goes, we follow.
Personally, I can't see how there wont be some kind of operation within months. The USA simply can't allow the situation to continue and indeed, it could be argued, it would be a dereliction of the duty of the president and his military to protect the US to not do something.
https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/888904322326638592
I agree entirely it's a horrendous choice. A military victory might require action (carpet-bombing) that involve a massive civilian death toll [not sure of lab/silo sites, might well be near civilian populations]. Otherwise, the artillery barrage on Seoul would result in the city's devastation, and there's the possibility of a nuclear attempt as well.
China toppling Kim Jong-un and establishing a puppet regime might be the least worst option, as far as death tolls go, but I don't know how plausible that is.
The history guy, Nial Ferguson was writing something along these lines a few weeks ago.
The SW suffers from a shortage of reservoirs to store the rain that falls so is first to impose garden hose pipe bans. But that does not mean they don't have rain.
1. Doing nothing militarily, leaning on Russia and China, offering them huge advantages if they solve the problem (I think only China really has the power to strangle the NK economy, and if they do then they have to worry qabout the missiles). They may be unable or unwilling to solve it. If so, rely on NK to do what it says and not actually attack anyone unless they feel really provoked, and never provoke them.
2. Carrying out a limited strike, aimed at destroying all known missile sites and/or the leadership personally. This is roughly what Israel did with Iran - it kicks the can down the road, but builds up hatred.
3. Launching an all-out invasion, combined with 2, with total secrecy until it happens. Is that even possible?
The least evil is perhaps a combination of 1+2 - perhaps/cajole/bribe China to squeeze, take out the known missile sites, and hope that the regime falls before they have another site ready.
Our instincts and experienced are all against taking action - Iraq! Liba! Syria! Afghanistan! Vietnam! An thinking what Trump should do is difficult as we need to get past our feelings about Trump. But counselling inaction that might lead to cities being nuked does seem irresponsible.
If they just take out Kim Jong-un, there's always the possibility he'll be succeeded by another nutcase. Or, also bad from a Chinese perspective, someone who wants reunification (not immediately, but down the line).
The only way for China to guarantee the buffer state remains just that, is to take control of the situation.
It appears that the new launching was from a fresh site apparently, so still some work to do on intelligence.
Taking out the hardened NK heavy artillery emplacements would be a slow and bloody job for SK combat engineers. The quick way would be tactical nukes or chemical weapons, but a first strike with these would perhaps provoke a much wider war.
China's the important player here, and we have to ask what they want and what their fears are.
They don't want US troops on their doorstep, which means that North Korea falling and South Korea taking over would be a no-no. They also don't want millions of North Koreans flooding over their borders.
Then there are the economic factors: if NK do something stupid, then China will be seen (rightly in some ways) as their protectors. That might hurt them economically, and that really matters to them at the moment.
But they also realise how unstable NK is, and that the country also threatens them in various ways. They have no fondness for NK.
The solution may be for the US and China to come to a deal. China will deal with NK's leadership, whilst the US protects SK. Once NK's leadership is gone, both sides remove their troops (China from NK, US from SK) and let the unified Korea sort themselves out.
It would raise China's standing internationally, and also make SK less of a competitor: the SK government would have to spend a fortune over decades 'fixing' the north.
It's a case of persuading China, and to a lesser extent the US, that the current situation is unsustainable and bad for business.
I see Kim Jong as acting entirely rationally as a defensive measure having observed Iraq and Libya. I see no evidence that he would attack the US or SK on a whim, knowing the consequences. To militarily attack North Korea would be the height of stupidity and the discussion here of how many megadeaths would be justified in knocking him out him is unbelievable. He's a fact of life like all the other nuclear powers, some of whom threaten first strike (including the UK).
Another step might be to agree an international (UN?) aid program for NK if the regime were to fall: have the nations of the world pour money and material in to try to prevent the population from leaving for China.
I would not count on them acting rationally in their dealings with other powers. They do things like kidnapping foreign nationals and assassinating cabinet ministers.