Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New leader ratings in 3 state key to Trump’s 2016 victory have

SystemSystem Posts: 12,651
edited August 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New leader ratings in 3 state key to Trump’s 2016 victory have him with big favourability deficits

Those of us who stayed up all night for the White House election last November will recall the huge focus on Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan – states won by Obama in 2012 which went to the Republican last year.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    The US system unlike ours has no real method for removing a sitting President during his term on simple grounds that he is just crap. Not sick or crooked, but just useless.

    I can't think of any historical parallel. Is there one?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,966
    DICIPOUS
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    bigjohnowls said:

    DICIPOUS

    Pronounced dicky POTUS.
  • AllanAllan Posts: 262
    Philip_Thompson said:

    The US system unlike ours has no real method for removing a sitting President during his term on simple grounds that he is just crap. Not sick or crooked, but just useless.

    I can't think of any historical parallel. Is there one?

    Gordon Brown?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Allan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    The US system unlike ours has no real method for removing a sitting President during his term on simple grounds that he is just crap. Not sick or crooked, but just useless.

    I can't think of any historical parallel. Is there one?

    Gordon Brown?
    Had David Milliband et al had the cojones to challenge Brown they could have won. Just as Blair himself had been pushed out - and Thatcher before him.

    I can't think of a sitting President being pushed out as his party had lost faith in him, rather than on grounds of ill health, corruption or death.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    C'mon Huddersfield. Give Man U some competition. Also the Baggies.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,492
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Allan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    The US system unlike ours has no real method for removing a sitting President during his term on simple grounds that he is just crap. Not sick or crooked, but just useless.

    I can't think of any historical parallel. Is there one?

    Gordon Brown?
    Had David Milliband et al had the cojones to challenge Brown they could have won. Just as Blair himself had been pushed out - and Thatcher before him.

    I can't think of a sitting President being pushed out as his party had lost faith in him, rather than on grounds of ill health, corruption or death.
    You could argue that LBJ was the only recent example.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,760
    Tony Scwartz, Trump's ghost writer and now critic, believes Trump doesn't like being President.

    How about this for a long-shot? Trump fires Pence, installs Kushner or Ivanka as Vice- President. Trump resigns!
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    Im pretty sure mueller will find something dodgy with Trumps financials or the russia collusion. No way he isnt compromised somewhere.

    If the GOP want him gone, theyll do it. James Murdoch's criticism last week is telling. No guarantee fox news will keep up their support of him now
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,492
    Mexicanpete said:

    Tony Scwartz, Trump's ghost writer and now critic, believes Trump doesn't like being President.

    How about this for a long-shot? Trump fires Pence, installs Kushner or Ivanka as Vice- President. Trump resigns!

    He can't fire Pence. He'd have to wait until 2020 to drop Pence from the ticket.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    http://maristpoll.marist.edu/820-return-to-the-rust-belt-dismal-job-approval-ratings-for-trump-in-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,760
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Tony Scwartz, Trump's ghost writer and now critic, believes Trump doesn't like being President.

    How about this for a long-shot? Trump fires Pence, installs Kushner or Ivanka as Vice- President. Trump resigns!

    He can't fire Pence. He'd have to wait until 2020 to drop Pence from the ticket.
    OK Pence resigns as Spiro Agnew before!
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Tony Scwartz, Trump's ghost writer and now critic, believes Trump doesn't like being President.

    How about this for a long-shot? Trump fires Pence, installs Kushner or Ivanka as Vice- President. Trump resigns!

    He can't fire Pence. He'd have to wait until 2020 to drop Pence from the ticket.
    Pence's best opportunity is to become President before 2020.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Mexicanpete said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Tony Scwartz, Trump's ghost writer and now critic, believes Trump doesn't like being President.

    How about this for a long-shot? Trump fires Pence, installs Kushner or Ivanka as Vice- President. Trump resigns!

    He can't fire Pence. He'd have to wait until 2020 to drop Pence from the ticket.
    OK Pence resigns as Spiro Agnew before!
    They need to find something really dirty about him. Now with Trump around............
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,492
    edited August 2017
    Mexicanpete said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Tony Scwartz, Trump's ghost writer and now critic, believes Trump doesn't like being President.

    How about this for a long-shot? Trump fires Pence, installs Kushner or Ivanka as Vice- President. Trump resigns!

    He can't fire Pence. He'd have to wait until 2020 to drop Pence from the ticket.
    OK Pence resigns as Spiro Agnew before!
    But the House has to vote upon it and there's rules and laws preventing a POTUS from nominating/appointing relatives to federal positions.

    They might be declared ineligible via the 25th Amendment route.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Tony Scwartz, Trump's ghost writer and now critic, believes Trump doesn't like being President.

    How about this for a long-shot? Trump fires Pence, installs Kushner or Ivanka as Vice- President. Trump resigns!

    He can't fire Pence. He'd have to wait until 2020 to drop Pence from the ticket.
    OK Pence resigns as Spiro Agnew before!
    But the House has to vote upon it and there's rules and laws preventing a POTUS from nominating/appointing relatives to federal positions.

    They might be declared ineligible via the 25th Amendment route.
    In theory , a relative can be a running mate !
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,760
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Tony Scwartz, Trump's ghost writer and now critic, believes Trump doesn't like being President.

    How about this for a long-shot? Trump fires Pence, installs Kushner or Ivanka as Vice- President. Trump resigns!

    He can't fire Pence. He'd have to wait until 2020 to drop Pence from the ticket.
    OK Pence resigns as Spiro Agnew before!
    But the House has to vote upon it and there's rules and laws preventing a POTUS from nominating/appointing relatives to federal positions.

    They might be declared ineligible via the 25th Amendment route.
    He hasn't had too much of a problem with nepotism so far!

    I suspect not being President but being in control of the Presidency would suit Trump perfectly. Under such circumstances he could use any old trusted lackey!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Allan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    The US system unlike ours has no real method for removing a sitting President during his term on simple grounds that he is just crap. Not sick or crooked, but just useless.

    I can't think of any historical parallel. Is there one?

    Gordon Brown?
    Had David Milliband et al had the cojones to challenge Brown they could have won. Just as Blair himself had been pushed out - and Thatcher before him.

    I can't think of a sitting President being pushed out as his party had lost faith in him, rather than on grounds of ill health, corruption or death.
    You could argue that LBJ was the only recent example.
    No I said "during his term". LBJ finished his term, he lost his primary campaign for his renomination but that was for the next term; he still served as President until the winner of the next election (Nixon) was sworn in.

    Is there any example (modern or historic) of Presidents being forced out during their term akin to Thatcher or Blair.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    I suspect that after charlottesville, Trump is on thin ice with congress and the senate. They wont block any attempts to get rid of him if anything else comes which they can use
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,792
    Buyer's remorse in Michigan, PA and Wisconsin?

    Or did the Russians really fiddle it?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,027
    The 45% is big for Trump to stay. But the 2-7 on Mayweather is even bigger
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Mexicanpete said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Tony Scwartz, Trump's ghost writer and now critic, believes Trump doesn't like being President.

    How about this for a long-shot? Trump fires Pence, installs Kushner or Ivanka as Vice- President. Trump resigns!

    He can't fire Pence. He'd have to wait until 2020 to drop Pence from the ticket.
    OK Pence resigns as Spiro Agnew before!
    But the House has to vote upon it and there's rules and laws preventing a POTUS from nominating/appointing relatives to federal positions.

    They might be declared ineligible via the 25th Amendment route.
    He hasn't had too much of a problem with nepotism so far!

    I suspect not being President but being in control of the Presidency would suit Trump perfectly. Under such circumstances he could use any old trusted lackey!
    The POTUS is nobodies trusted lackey once in situ. Just ask Bannon.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,680
    Philip_Thompson said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Allan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    The US system unlike ours has no real method for removing a sitting President during his term on simple grounds that he is just crap. Not sick or crooked, but just useless.

    I can't think of any historical parallel. Is there one?

    Gordon Brown?
    Had David Milliband et al had the cojones to challenge Brown they could have won. Just as Blair himself had been pushed out - and Thatcher before him.

    I can't think of a sitting President being pushed out as his party had lost faith in him, rather than on grounds of ill health, corruption or death.
    You could argue that LBJ was the only recent example.
    No I said "during his term". LBJ finished his term, he lost his primary campaign for his renomination but that was for the next term; he still served as President until the winner of the next election (Nixon) was sworn in.

    Is there any example (modern or historic) of Presidents being forced out during their term akin to Thatcher or Blair.
    No.
    None have successfully been impeached, and only Nixon resigned.

    Otherwise death is the only way a presidential term has been terminated early.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,680
    FPT, can I say that I strongly agree with isam and others about the disgusting fixed odds betting terminals. As far as I can see, the tax the revenue derives from them is morally equivalent to receiving protection money from criminals. (Though, of course, legally quite distinct.)
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Allan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    The US system unlike ours has no real method for removing a sitting President during his term on simple grounds that he is just crap. Not sick or crooked, but just useless.

    I can't think of any historical parallel. Is there one?

    Gordon Brown?
    Theresa May
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,575
    Aides are hanging in there. Partly, to save America from Trump:

    https://www.axios.com/why-top-white-house-officials-wont-quit-trump-2475045237.html
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,621
    edited August 2017
    Philip_Thompson said:

    The US system unlike ours has no real method for removing a sitting President during his term on simple grounds that he is just crap. Not sick or crooked, but just useless.

    I can't think of any historical parallel. Is there one?

    The main difference is that he is directly elected to the position, so he was put there by the people rather than by his party as in the UK.

    If he doesn’t want to resign there’s really no way to remove him. The 25th amendment was intended for use when the President was in a coma and unable to work, it’s a very long shot to try and use it to get rid of someone they just don’t like and the Supreme Court would probably intervene if it was attempted.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,621
    Nigelb said:

    FPT, can I say that I strongly agree with isam and others about the disgusting fixed odds betting terminals. As far as I can see, the tax the revenue derives from them is morally equivalent to receiving protection money from criminals. (Though, of course, legally quite distinct.)

    One of those rare issues on which there is compete cross-party agreement on PB.

    They belong in casinos, not on high streets.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    If the president had been elected directly by the voters then Hillary Clinton would now be in the White House.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,575
    MikeSmithson said:

    If the president had been elected directly by the voters then Hillary Clinton would now be in the White House.

    ...and we could all sleep easier in our beds at night.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,575
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    FPT, can I say that I strongly agree with isam and others about the disgusting fixed odds betting terminals. As far as I can see, the tax the revenue derives from them is morally equivalent to receiving protection money from criminals. (Though, of course, legally quite distinct.)

    One of those rare issues on which there is compete cross-party agreement on PB.

    They belong in casinos, not on high streets.
    Guido and OrderOrder has been banging on about these things for ages.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    MikeSmithson said:

    If the president had been elected directly by the voters then Hillary Clinton would now be in the White House.

    Not necessarily.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,866
    Sadly, just been confirmed the British (dual national) seven year old was killed in the recent attack:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40993651
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,680
    For those who think the UK's 2040 electric car target overly ambitious, China looks to be aiming to get there sooner....
    http://insideevs.com/excluding-tesla-global-automakers-demand-that-china-eases-impossible-electric-car-regulations/
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,712
    There was a discussion about gas cylinder and bombs in the previous thread.

    Can anyone (legally!) explain how you actually get them to 'explode' (i.e. detonate) as opposed to just conflagrate rapidly? Surely the pressure relief valves would be difficult to defeat if you wanted to create a bleve?

    Cylinder bombs were tried by the Glasgow airport bombers, and the 'bomb' failed, as did their attempt in London a few days earlier. Both failed to cause much damage, although they had potential. ISTR some US high school attackers (Columbine?) also failed to get them to explode.

    So, how easy would it be to create an explosion in theory, as it seems more high-profile attempts have failed than succeeded?

    Needless to say, I have no intent to do this ...
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Sadly, just been confirmed the British (dual national) seven year old was killed in the recent attack:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40993651

    It is a sad sign of the times, Mr Dancer, that we can't tell from your description "the recent attack" which one you are referring to,
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,680
    GeoffM said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    If the president had been elected directly by the voters then Hillary Clinton would now be in the White House.

    Not necessarily.
    But very probably.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,575
    MikeSmithson said:

    Allan said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    The US system unlike ours has no real method for removing a sitting President during his term on simple grounds that he is just crap. Not sick or crooked, but just useless.

    I can't think of any historical parallel. Is there one?

    Gordon Brown?
    Theresa May
    Asquith. Effectively removed from office.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Nigelb said:

    GeoffM said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    If the president had been elected directly by the voters then Hillary Clinton would now be in the White House.

    Not necessarily.
    But very probably.
    Really? A different voting system means different a very different strategy and a completely different road to the White House.

    MSmithson is assuming that it would have remained a DJP/HRC fight.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,621
    rottenborough said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    FPT, can I say that I strongly agree with isam and others about the disgusting fixed odds betting terminals. As far as I can see, the tax the revenue derives from them is morally equivalent to receiving protection money from criminals. (Though, of course, legally quite distinct.)

    One of those rare issues on which there is compete cross-party agreement on PB.

    They belong in casinos, not on high streets.
    Guido and OrderOrder has been banging on about these things for ages.
    He’s being paid to. All the posts on FOBTs are “Sponsored”. Good for publicity though, lots of politicians read his site.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    This is pathetic:

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15483952.Revealed__Westminster_and_the_big_lie_about_Scotland_s_oil/

    Because it ignores this:

    http://graphics.wsj.com/oil-barrel-breakdown/

    Why does Norway make more money from North Sea oil than the UK?

    Because production costs are a quarter of the UKs - and total extraction costs under half....

    'Business' (sic) For Scotland displaying their business (sic) expertise.....

    Classic pre-GERS distraction chaff......
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    You know how nasty xenophobic Britain's turning its back on open welcoming Europe?

    https://www.indy100.com/article/european-countriesracist-study-european-union-map-prejudice-survey-7893106
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    Patrick Minford's full report is now out. He thinks people currently have to show ID at the Irish border because the UK is not in Schengen.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,621
    MikeSmithson said:

    If the president had been elected directly by the voters then Hillary Clinton would now be in the White House.

    His name was on the ballot paper and he won 30 of the 50 States.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    williamglenn said:

    Patrick Minford's full report is now out. He thinks people currently have to show ID at the Irish border because the UK is not in Schengen.

    This is getting confusing. Are you Remoaners currently saying that we *should* or *shouldn't* be listening to 'experts'? Does Prof Minford count as an 'expert' or not? Is there a convenient list of Approved Experts I can check against?

    Does it include twitter 'experts' like Three Names Dave?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    JosiasJessop said:

    There was a discussion about gas cylinder and bombs in the previous thread.

    Can anyone (legally!) explain how you actually get them to 'explode' (i.e. detonate) as opposed to just conflagrate rapidly? Surely the pressure relief valves would be difficult to defeat if you wanted to create a bleve?

    Cylinder bombs were tried by the Glasgow airport bombers, and the 'bomb' failed, as did their attempt in London a few days earlier. Both failed to cause much damage, although they had potential. ISTR some US high school attackers (Columbine?) also failed to get them to explode.

    So, how easy would it be to create an explosion in theory, as it seems more high-profile attempts have failed than succeeded?

    Needless to say, I have no intent to do this ...

    Superglue in the valves?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    williamglenn said:

    Patrick Minford's full report is now out.

    Link please.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    https://twitter.com/evanmcmurry/status/899283641913798658

    Wonder who long before Jared is referred to as a 'Globalist'?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    CarlottaVance said:

    williamglenn said:

    Patrick Minford's full report is now out.

    Link please.
    http://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/From-Project-Fear-to-Project-Prosperity-An-Introduction-15-Aug-17-1.pdf
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    FFS

    https://twitter.com/singharj/status/899296320577581056
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    edited August 2017
    I think Trump will survive the rest of his term and be re-elected in 2020. How? The Democrats will win the House next year as Republicans can't be bothered to vote for Ryan and his crew while they turn out to vote against Trump. They will also make gains in the Senate but the GOP will retain control.

    The Democrats will then try and push impeachment proceedings which will pass the House but get nowhere near the 2/3 majority needed in the Senate. Trump meanwhile will have to have moved back to the centre to work with Congress and Speaker Pelosi to get anything done, the Democrats meanwhile will see the mid-terms as vindication of a left/liberal agenda, pick Warren in 2020 (who Sanders will endorse after flirting with another run) and who Trump will then narrowly beat. Though I think Warren will do better in the Electoral College than Hillary without doing well enough to vote she will do worse in the popular vote
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,718
    JosiasJessop said:

    There was a discussion about gas cylinder and bombs in the previous thread.

    Can anyone (legally!) explain how you actually get them to 'explode' (i.e. detonate) as opposed to just conflagrate rapidly? Surely the pressure relief valves would be difficult to defeat if you wanted to create a bleve?

    Cylinder bombs were tried by the Glasgow airport bombers, and the 'bomb' failed, as did their attempt in London a few days earlier. Both failed to cause much damage, although they had potential. ISTR some US high school attackers (Columbine?) also failed to get them to explode.

    So, how easy would it be to create an explosion in theory, as it seems more high-profile attempts have failed than succeeded?

    Needless to say, I have no intent to do this ...

    I have no idea. But the gas canisters in the house in Alcanar, north of Barcelona, did explode destroying the house. So it must be possible. Let's hope it is not at all easy, eh?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/evanmcmurry/status/899283641913798658

    Wonder who long before Jared is referred to as a 'Globalist'?

    It isn't the front page *now* That photo was changed a few hours ago. A few of the comments below the line on that article are mine.

    And yes, Javanka are out of control. We'll end up with a globalist-Democrat White House without a change in President if he doesn't turn this tide. McMaster has to go.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,712
    Ishmael_Z said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    There was a discussion about gas cylinder and bombs in the previous thread.

    Can anyone (legally!) explain how you actually get them to 'explode' (i.e. detonate) as opposed to just conflagrate rapidly? Surely the pressure relief valves would be difficult to defeat if you wanted to create a bleve?

    Cylinder bombs were tried by the Glasgow airport bombers, and the 'bomb' failed, as did their attempt in London a few days earlier. Both failed to cause much damage, although they had potential. ISTR some US high school attackers (Columbine?) also failed to get them to explode.

    So, how easy would it be to create an explosion in theory, as it seems more high-profile attempts have failed than succeeded?

    Needless to say, I have no intent to do this ...

    Superglue in the valves?
    Perhaps. But AIUI you'd still need to get the cylinders hot enough to exceed the internal pressure and 'explode'.

    (I also STR that cylinders are designed to 'unzip' rather than explode into pieces, reducing shrapnel. I've no idea where I got that from, though.)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,575
    619 said:

    FFS

    https://twitter.com/singharj/status/899296320577581056

    Dear God, what a fuss about nothing. Really, the country is facing its biggest post-war crisis and MPs think this is worth worrying about. I despair.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,621
    619 said:

    FFS

    ttps://twitter.com/singharj/status/899296320577581056

    The biggest question is what will happen to Big Ben’s Twitter account. It’s been binging away the hours since 2009, surely it’s not going to fall silent with the bell?
    https://twitter.com/big_ben_clock
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    williamglenn said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    williamglenn said:

    Patrick Minford's full report is now out.

    Link please.
    http://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/From-Project-Fear-to-Project-Prosperity-An-Introduction-15-Aug-17-1.pdf
    Thank you - yes he's clearly wrong on the Schengen issue as neither the UK nor Ireland are members - nor are there 'border checks' between the North & South (though there are, and have been for some time, checks on entering Ireland from Britain, but not in the other direction...). On the broader point he is of course correct that 'border controls' are solely a matter for the British & Irish governments.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    rottenborough said:

    619 said:

    FFS

    https://twitter.com/singharj/status/899296320577581056

    Dear God, what a fuss about nothing. Really, the country is facing its biggest post-war crisis and MPs think this is worth worrying about. I despair.
    I agree that we're facing a huge crisis, but I think we can take a break from worrying about Islamic terrorism for 5 mins to listen to a clock,

    Carry on in the face of bombs, stiff upper lip, eh?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Sandpit said:

    619 said:

    FFS

    ttps://twitter.com/singharj/status/899296320577581056

    The biggest question is what will happen to Big Ben’s Twitter account. It’s been binging away the hours since 2009, surely it’s not going to fall silent with the bell?
    https://twitter.com/big_ben_clock
    Yes, I posed that question the other day too - it's one of the most factual informative twitter feeds out there (although that's not saying much) and it mustn't be silenced!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,245
    Nigelb said:

    For those who think the UK's 2040 electric car target overly ambitious, China looks to be aiming to get there sooner....
    http://insideevs.com/excluding-tesla-global-automakers-demand-that-china-eases-impossible-electric-car-regulations/

    Regulation or no regulation, if electric cars are cheaper than petrol ones, have similar range, better performance and lower running costs, then the market for petrol cars is going to be very small indeed.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,866
    Mr. 619, to be fair, I said prayers for my old gym gloves when I had to consign them to the rubbish bin.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    HYUFD said:

    I think Trump will survive the rest of his term and be re-elected in 2020. How? The Democrats will win the House next year as Republicans can't be bothered to vote for Ryan and his crew while they turn out to vote against Trump. They will also make gains in the Senate but the GOP will retain control.

    The Democrats will then try and push impeachment proceedings which will pass the House but get nowhere near the 2/3 majority needed in the Senate. Trump meanwhile will have to have moved back to the centre to work with Congress and Speaker Pelosi to get anything done, the Democrats meanwhile will see the mid-terms as vindication of a left/liberal agenda, pick Warren in 2020 (who Sanders will endorse after flirting with another run) and who Trump will then narrowly beat. Though I think Warren will do better in the Electoral College than Hillary without doing well enough to vote she will do worse in the popular vote

    One of the problems with that is Trump wont move to the centre. He hasnt yet, so i dont see why he would change any time soon.

    And you think he will run for relection and win if there are impeachment proceedings against him which passes the House?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,621
    GeoffM said:

    Sandpit said:

    619 said:

    FFS

    ttps://twitter.com/singharj/status/899296320577581056

    The biggest question is what will happen to Big Ben’s Twitter account. It’s been binging away the hours since 2009, surely it’s not going to fall silent with the bell?
    https://twitter.com/big_ben_clock
    Yes, I posed that question the other day too - it's one of the most factual informative twitter feeds out there (although that's not saying much) and it mustn't be silenced!
    It’s also a very useful way of quickly checking London time when travelling. Wherever I am I know it’s 5:25 in London right now.
    https://twitter.com/big_ben_clock/status/899300002530553862
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,712
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    For those who think the UK's 2040 electric car target overly ambitious, China looks to be aiming to get there sooner....
    http://insideevs.com/excluding-tesla-global-automakers-demand-that-china-eases-impossible-electric-car-regulations/

    Regulation or no regulation, if electric cars are cheaper than petrol ones, have similar range, better performance and lower running costs, then the market for petrol cars is going to be very small indeed.
    There's a fair few conditionals in that statement.

    You also missed 'and we have charging points outside every home' ;)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,245
    Ishmael_Z said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    There was a discussion about gas cylinder and bombs in the previous thread.

    Can anyone (legally!) explain how you actually get them to 'explode' (i.e. detonate) as opposed to just conflagrate rapidly? Surely the pressure relief valves would be difficult to defeat if you wanted to create a bleve?

    Cylinder bombs were tried by the Glasgow airport bombers, and the 'bomb' failed, as did their attempt in London a few days earlier. Both failed to cause much damage, although they had potential. ISTR some US high school attackers (Columbine?) also failed to get them to explode.

    So, how easy would it be to create an explosion in theory, as it seems more high-profile attempts have failed than succeeded?

    Needless to say, I have no intent to do this ...

    Superglue in the valves?
    That would still be the weakest part of the cylinder though. As the pressure built it would rapidly exceed the ability of the superglue to hold it.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,658
    GeoffM said:

    Is there a convenient list of Approved Experts I can check against?

    It's in the hollowed-out volcano base next to the space shuttle. But you have to be a Grade 7 adept to read it. If you don't have clearance, just ask.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    edited August 2017
    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think Trump will survive the rest of his term and be re-elected in 2020. How? The Democrats will win the House next year as Republicans can't be bothered to vote for Ryan and his crew while they turn out to vote against Trump. They will also make gains in the Senate but the GOP will retain control.

    The Democrats will then try and push impeachment proceedings which will pass the House but get nowhere near the 2/3 majority needed in the Senate. Trump meanwhile will have to have moved back to the centre to work with Congress and Speaker Pelosi to get anything done, the Democrats meanwhile will see the mid-terms as vindication of a left/liberal agenda, pick Warren in 2020 (who Sanders will endorse after flirting with another run) and who Trump will then narrowly beat. Though I think Warren will do better in the Electoral College than Hillary without doing well enough to vote she will do worse in the popular vote

    One of the problems with that is Trump wont move to the centre. He hasnt yet, so i dont see why he would change any time soon.

    And you think he will run for relection and win if there are impeachment proceedings against him which passes the House?
    Of course he has not yet as he has no need to. The GOP control both Chambers of Congress. However if the Democrats control the House he will have to adapt to get them to pass anything. Bill Clinton of course started off on a left/liberal course from 1992-1994 with abysmal poll ratings (almost as low as Trump's now) before moving to the centre after the GOP won Congress in 1994 and then being re-elected in 1996.

    Impeachment proceedings will have failed by 2020 as they will have been blocked by the Senate, so until the Democrats take the Senate they will not be an issue again.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,492
    edited August 2017
    So the away form of Spurs will be what keeps them safe or relegated this season?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,245
    HYUFD said:

    I think Trump will survive the rest of his term and be re-elected in 2020. How? The Democrats will win the House next year as Republicans can't be bothered to vote for Ryan and his crew while they turn out to vote against Trump. They will also make gains in the Senate but the GOP will retain control.

    The Democrats will then try and push impeachment proceedings which will pass the House but get nowhere near the 2/3 majority needed in the Senate. Trump meanwhile will have to have moved back to the centre to work with Congress and Speaker Pelosi to get anything done, the Democrats meanwhile will see the mid-terms as vindication of a left/liberal agenda, pick Warren in 2020 (who Sanders will endorse after flirting with another run) and who Trump will then narrowly beat. Though I think Warren will do better in the Electoral College than Hillary without doing well enough to vote she will do worse in the popular vote

    I think the Democrats will really struggle to make gains in the Senate next year. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2018

    There are 33 Senators up for re-election, and only 8 of them are Republicans. Now, Nevada could flip to the Dems, and there are some suggestions that Arizona could go too.

    But against that, the Democrats are defending West Virginia (R+20 in latest poll), North Dakota (R+16), and Montana (R+11).

    The most likely outcome, I suspect is that the Dems pick up Nevada, and (maybe) Arizona, but drop West Virginia, North Dakota and Montana.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,621
    edited August 2017
    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    There was a discussion about gas cylinder and bombs in the previous thread.

    Can anyone (legally!) explain how you actually get them to 'explode' (i.e. detonate) as opposed to just conflagrate rapidly? Surely the pressure relief valves would be difficult to defeat if you wanted to create a bleve?

    Cylinder bombs were tried by the Glasgow airport bombers, and the 'bomb' failed, as did their attempt in London a few days earlier. Both failed to cause much damage, although they had potential. ISTR some US high school attackers (Columbine?) also failed to get them to explode.

    So, how easy would it be to create an explosion in theory, as it seems more high-profile attempts have failed than succeeded?

    Needless to say, I have no intent to do this ...

    Superglue in the valves?
    That would still be the weakest part of the cylinder though. As the pressure built it would rapidly exceed the ability of the superglue to hold it.
    This reminds me of when Mythbusters made water heaters explode. There were lots of safety systems, thermostats and valves designed to stop the pressure going up too high. Which is just as well because when they disabled everything and heated it up until it exploded it went through the roof of the house and 500’ up in the air!
    youtube.com/watch?v=jbreKn4PoAc
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,245
    edited August 2017
    Cyclefree said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    There was a discussion about gas cylinder and bombs in the previous thread.

    Can anyone (legally!) explain how you actually get them to 'explode' (i.e. detonate) as opposed to just conflagrate rapidly? Surely the pressure relief valves would be difficult to defeat if you wanted to create a bleve?

    Cylinder bombs were tried by the Glasgow airport bombers, and the 'bomb' failed, as did their attempt in London a few days earlier. Both failed to cause much damage, although they had potential. ISTR some US high school attackers (Columbine?) also failed to get them to explode.

    So, how easy would it be to create an explosion in theory, as it seems more high-profile attempts have failed than succeeded?

    Needless to say, I have no intent to do this ...

    I have no idea. But the gas canisters in the house in Alcanar, north of Barcelona, did explode destroying the house. So it must be possible. Let's hope it is not at all easy, eh?
    Mythbusters did a couple of shows on exploding gas cylinders and concluded that you need to get the cylinders (a) full of exactly the right material, (b) at exactly the right level of fill (too full and there is not enough oxygen, too empty and there is not enough fuel), (c) heated to exactly the right temperature, and (d) set off in exactly the right way.

    It's possible, but even for experts, quite difficult.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,245
    GeoffM said:

    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/evanmcmurry/status/899283641913798658

    Wonder who long before Jared is referred to as a 'Globalist'?

    It isn't the front page *now* That photo was changed a few hours ago. A few of the comments below the line on that article are mine.

    And yes, Javanka are out of control. We'll end up with a globalist-Democrat White House without a change in President if he doesn't turn this tide. McMaster has to go.
    I find it odd that on the one hand you are in favour of the globalist, free trade, Minford, and on the other hand in favour of the nationalist, protectionist Bannon.

    It's almost like you pick your enemies first, and then the rest of your views follow.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,712
    Cyclefree said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    There was a discussion about gas cylinder and bombs in the previous thread.

    Can anyone (legally!) explain how you actually get them to 'explode' (i.e. detonate) as opposed to just conflagrate rapidly? Surely the pressure relief valves would be difficult to defeat if you wanted to create a bleve?

    Cylinder bombs were tried by the Glasgow airport bombers, and the 'bomb' failed, as did their attempt in London a few days earlier. Both failed to cause much damage, although they had potential. ISTR some US high school attackers (Columbine?) also failed to get them to explode.

    So, how easy would it be to create an explosion in theory, as it seems more high-profile attempts have failed than succeeded?

    Needless to say, I have no intent to do this ...

    I have no idea. But the gas canisters in the house in Alcanar, north of Barcelona, did explode destroying the house. So it must be possible. Let's hope it is not at all easy, eh?
    Did the cylinders explode? I saw a report they were making other 'real' explosives at the time, which went off.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    edited August 2017
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think Trump will survive the rest of his term and be re-elected in 2020. How? The Democrats will win the House next year as Republicans can't be bothered to vote for Ryan and his crew while they turn out to vote against Trump. They will also make gains in the Senate but the GOP will retain control.

    The Democrats will then try and push impeachment proceedings which will pass the House but get nowhere near the 2/3 majority needed in the Senate. Trump meanwhile will have to have moved back to the centre to work with Congress and Speaker Pelosi to get anything done, the Democrats meanwhile will see the mid-terms as vindication of a left/liberal agenda, pick Warren in 2020 (who Sanders will endorse after flirting with another run) and who Trump will then narrowly beat. Though I think Warren will do better in the Electoral College than Hillary without doing well enough to vote she will do worse in the popular vote

    I think the Democrats will really struggle to make gains in the Senate next year. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2018

    There are 33 Senators up for re-election, and only 8 of them are Republicans. Now, Nevada could flip to the Dems, and there are some suggestions that Arizona could go too.

    But against that, the Democrats are defending West Virginia (R+20 in latest poll), North Dakota (R+16), and Montana (R+11).

    The most likely outcome, I suspect is that the Dems pick up Nevada, and (maybe) Arizona, but drop West Virginia, North Dakota and Montana.
    Which would make it even more likely Trump survives any impeachment proceedings as there will not be enough support in the Senate to convict even if the House votes for his impeachment. (I think the Democrats will hold West Virginia though, their Senator there is more conservative than most establishment Republicans)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,245
    JosiasJessop said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    For those who think the UK's 2040 electric car target overly ambitious, China looks to be aiming to get there sooner....
    http://insideevs.com/excluding-tesla-global-automakers-demand-that-china-eases-impossible-electric-car-regulations/

    Regulation or no regulation, if electric cars are cheaper than petrol ones, have similar range, better performance and lower running costs, then the market for petrol cars is going to be very small indeed.
    There's a fair few conditionals in that statement.

    You also missed 'and we have charging points outside every home' ;)
    Apparently, we already have a system for transporting electrical energy around the country...

    More seriously, the price and efficiency of batteries (which is the only thing that matters) is coming down all the time. I've seen presentations from various battery manufacturers, and they all seem confident that we'll continue to see the same steady progress in terms of energy density and cost.

    I got a Tesla Roadster seven years ago when it first came out. The battery pack did 210 miles. They'll now swap it out for a cheaper, identically dimensioned one, that will do 340 miles.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think Trump will survive the rest of his term and be re-elected in 2020. How? The Democrats will win the House next year as Republicans can't be bothered to vote for Ryan and his crew while they turn out to vote against Trump. They will also make gains in the Senate but the GOP will retain control.

    The Democrats will then try and push impeachment proceedings which will pass the House but get nowhere near the 2/3 majority needed in the Senate. Trump meanwhile will have to have moved back to the centre to work with Congress and Speaker Pelosi to get anything done, the Democrats meanwhile will see the mid-terms as vindication of a left/liberal agenda, pick Warren in 2020 (who Sanders will endorse after flirting with another run) and who Trump will then narrowly beat. Though I think Warren will do better in the Electoral College than Hillary without doing well enough to vote she will do worse in the popular vote

    One of the problems with that is Trump wont move to the centre. He hasnt yet, so i dont see why he would change any time soon.

    And you think he will run for relection and win if there are impeachment proceedings against him which passes the House?
    Of course he has not yet as he has no need to. The GOP control both Chambers of Congress. However if the Democrats control the House he will have to adapt to get them to pass anything. Bill Clinton of course started off on a left/liberal course from 1992-1994 with abysmal poll ratings (almost as low as Trump's now) before moving to the centre after the GOP won Congress in 1994 and then being re-elected in 1996.

    Impeachment proceedings will have failed by 2020 as they will have been blocked by the Senate, so until the Democrats take the Senate they will not be an issue again.
    The other thing is that we've already passed the point where using the term 'impeachment' has lost its sting. Rather like "racist" or "literally Hitler" you can overplay a card. Columnists predicting impeachment is political crack - the talking heads have got to keep using it to maintain the effect but in stronger doses each broadcast because the high is never quite as good as last time.

    We've now at the stage where every president of every stripe will be threatened with impeachment just for breathing. There have been Articles drafted and threats made against every President since at least GHWB. Sooner or later - and based on nothing more pivotal than simply Congress mathematics, it'll hit one president or another.

    Javanka will eventually tame DJT and drain his mojo, bringing him the the centre and then to vapid pointless failure. Let's just hope he's finished arranging the Supremes before that happens.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,245
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    There was a discussion about gas cylinder and bombs in the previous thread.

    Can anyone (legally!) explain how you actually get them to 'explode' (i.e. detonate) as opposed to just conflagrate rapidly? Surely the pressure relief valves would be difficult to defeat if you wanted to create a bleve?

    Cylinder bombs were tried by the Glasgow airport bombers, and the 'bomb' failed, as did their attempt in London a few days earlier. Both failed to cause much damage, although they had potential. ISTR some US high school attackers (Columbine?) also failed to get them to explode.

    So, how easy would it be to create an explosion in theory, as it seems more high-profile attempts have failed than succeeded?

    Needless to say, I have no intent to do this ...

    Superglue in the valves?
    That would still be the weakest part of the cylinder though. As the pressure built it would rapidly exceed the ability of the superglue to hold it.
    This reminds me of when Mythbusters made water heaters explode. There were lots of safety systems, thermostats and valves designed to stop the pressure going up too high. Which is just as well because when they disabled everything and heated it up until it exploded it went through the roof of the house and 500’ up in the air!
    youtube.com/watch?v=jbreKn4PoAc
    Cool!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,245
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think Trump will survive the rest of his term and be re-elected in 2020. How? The Democrats will win the House next year as Republicans can't be bothered to vote for Ryan and his crew while they turn out to vote against Trump. They will also make gains in the Senate but the GOP will retain control.

    The Democrats will then try and push impeachment proceedings which will pass the House but get nowhere near the 2/3 majority needed in the Senate. Trump meanwhile will have to have moved back to the centre to work with Congress and Speaker Pelosi to get anything done, the Democrats meanwhile will see the mid-terms as vindication of a left/liberal agenda, pick Warren in 2020 (who Sanders will endorse after flirting with another run) and who Trump will then narrowly beat. Though I think Warren will do better in the Electoral College than Hillary without doing well enough to vote she will do worse in the popular vote

    I think the Democrats will really struggle to make gains in the Senate next year. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2018

    There are 33 Senators up for re-election, and only 8 of them are Republicans. Now, Nevada could flip to the Dems, and there are some suggestions that Arizona could go too.

    But against that, the Democrats are defending West Virginia (R+20 in latest poll), North Dakota (R+16), and Montana (R+11).

    The most likely outcome, I suspect is that the Dems pick up Nevada, and (maybe) Arizona, but drop West Virginia, North Dakota and Montana.
    Which would make it even more likely Trump survives any impeachment proceedings as there will not be enough support in the Senate to convict even if the House votes for his impeachment. (I think the Democrats will hold West Virginia though, their Senator there is more conservative than most establishment Republicans)
    You're right: the latest polling has Manchin 9 points ahead. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_West_Virginia,_2018)
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think Trump will survive the rest of his term and be re-elected in 2020. How? The Democrats will win the House next year as Republicans can't be bothered to vote for Ryan and his crew while they turn out to vote against Trump. They will also make gains in the Senate but the GOP will retain control.

    The Democrats will then try and push impeachment proceedings which will pass the House but get nowhere near the 2/3 majority needed in the Senate. Trump meanwhile will have to have moved back to the centre to work with Congress and Speaker Pelosi to get anything done, the Democrats meanwhile will see the mid-terms as vindication of a left/liberal agenda, pick Warren in 2020 (who Sanders will endorse after flirting with another run) and who Trump will then narrowly beat. Though I think Warren will do better in the Electoral College than Hillary without doing well enough to vote she will do worse in the popular vote

    I think the Democrats will really struggle to make gains in the Senate next year. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2018

    There are 33 Senators up for re-election, and only 8 of them are Republicans. Now, Nevada could flip to the Dems, and there are some suggestions that Arizona could go too.

    But against that, the Democrats are defending West Virginia (R+20 in latest poll), North Dakota (R+16), and Montana (R+11).

    The most likely outcome, I suspect is that the Dems pick up Nevada, and (maybe) Arizona, but drop West Virginia, North Dakota and Montana.
    Which would make it even more likely Trump survives any impeachment proceedings as there will not be enough support in the Senate to convict even if the House votes for his impeachment. (I think the Democrats will hold West Virginia though, their Senator there is more conservative than most establishment Republicans)
    Sen Joe Manchin is a likely new Energy Secretary if Perry goes to Homeland. Then the newly minted Dem -> GOP governor of WV gets to burnish his new Republican credentials by appointing a solidly Rep senator.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,151
    Philip_Thompson said:

    The US system unlike ours has no real method for removing a sitting President during his term on simple grounds that he is just crap. Not sick or crooked, but just useless.

    I can't think of any historical parallel. Is there one?

    No. And that encompassed some pretty useless Presidents. The closest example would be Andrew Johnson, but he served out his term. It's worth pointing out that he was a non-party figure as well, having been a Democrat and co-opted by Lincoln to pose as a national party. So like Trump he had no base, but unlike Trump he was unelected.
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Tony Scwartz, Trump's ghost writer and now critic, believes Trump doesn't like being President.

    How about this for a long-shot? Trump fires Pence, installs Kushner or Ivanka as Vice- President. Trump resigns!

    He can't fire Pence. He'd have to wait until 2020 to drop Pence from the ticket.
    In theory he could, but it would be very, very difficult. He needs a vote in the House and I think a two-thirds majority in the Senate to achieve it. And since he doesn't have any support in either body...

    Only one Vice President has ever resigned over clashing with the President (of two total, Agnew being the other) - John C. Calhoun, who resigned over Jackson's Nullification Policy, amongst other things. That happened as long ago as 1832 and is an even less happy precedent for Pence as it is thought to have cost Calhoun the presidential nomination for that year. It went instead to the notoriously incompetent Polk.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    edited August 2017
    GeoffM said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think Trump will survive the rest of

    One of the problems with that is Trump wont move to the centre. He hasnt yet, so i dont see why he would change any time soon.

    And you think he will run for relection and win if there are impeachment proceedings against him which passes the House?
    Of course he has not .
    The other thing is that we've already passed the point where using the term 'impeachment' has lost its sting. Rather like "racist" or "literally Hitler" you can overplay a card. Columnists predicting impeachment is political crack - the talking heads have got to keep using it to maintain the effect but in stronger doses each broadcast because the high is never quite as good as last time.

    We've now at the stage where every president of every stripe will be threatened with impeachment just for breathing. There have been Articles drafted and threats made against every President since at least GHWB. Sooner or later - and based on nothing more pivotal than simply Congress mathematics, it'll hit one president or another.

    Javanka will eventually tame DJT and drain his mojo, bringing him the the centre and then to vapid pointless failure. Let's just hope he's finished arranging the Supremes before that happens.
    Indeed, until the opposition party has overwhelming majorities in both Chambers of Congress impeachment threats are just empty threats.

    I also agree with Bannon and the Mooch gone and Ivanka, Kushner and John Kelly now running the show the long slow march of the Donald to the centre has begun and it will be accelerated when the Democrats take the House next year. Don't forget Trump has never been that ideological, he was a Democrat in the Clinton years for starters, he just cares about winning, that was why he ran as a populist nationalist in 2016 to beat the GOP establishment in the primaries and the centrist, tainted establishment Hillary in the general election (who let us not forget still beat him in the popular vote). If the Democrats, as is likely, pick a populist left liberal against him in 2020 he will shift to the vacant centre if it offers him the best path of victory then
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    rcs1000 said:

    GeoffM said:

    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/evanmcmurry/status/899283641913798658

    Wonder who long before Jared is referred to as a 'Globalist'?

    It isn't the front page *now* That photo was changed a few hours ago. A few of the comments below the line on that article are mine.

    And yes, Javanka are out of control. We'll end up with a globalist-Democrat White House without a change in President if he doesn't turn this tide. McMaster has to go.
    I find it odd that on the one hand you are in favour of the globalist, free trade, Minford, and on the other hand in favour of the nationalist, protectionist Bannon.

    It's almost like you pick your enemies first, and then the rest of your views follow.
    With apologies; my point about Minford was purely intended to be about the uses and quoting of 'experts' by whichever side suited them best.

    I wasn't making a point about his views or conclusions in this case - in favour or against - at all. Sorry if it came across differently.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,245
    HYUFD said:



    GeoffM said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think Trump will survive the rest of

    One of the problems with that is Trump wont move to the centre. He hasnt yet, so i dont see why he would change any time soon.

    And you think he will run for relection and win if there are impeachment proceedings against him which passes the House?
    Of course he has not .
    The other thing is that we've already passed the point where using the term 'impeachment' has lost its sting. Rather like "racist" or "literally Hitler" you can overplay a card. Columnists predicting impeachment is political crack - the talking heads have got to keep using it to maintain the effect but in stronger doses each broadcast because the high is never quite as good as last time.

    We've now at the stage where every president of every stripe will be threatened with impeachment just for breathing. There have been Articles drafted and threats made against every President since at least GHWB. Sooner or later - and based on nothing more pivotal than simply Congress mathematics, it'll hit one president or another.

    Javanka will eventually tame DJT and drain his mojo, bringing him the the centre and then to vapid pointless failure. Let's just hope he's finished arranging the Supremes before that happens.
    Indeed, until the opposition party has overwhelming majorities in both Chambers of Congress impeachment threats are just empty threats.

    I also agree with Bannon and the Mooch gone and Ivanka, Kushner and John Kelly now running the show the long slow march of the Donald to the centre has begun and it will be accelerated when the Democrats take the House next year. Don't forget Trump has never been that ideological, he was a Democrat in the Clinton years for starters, he just cares about winning, that was why he ran as a populist nationalist in 2016 to beat the GOP establishment in primaries and the centrist, tainted establishment Hillary in the general election (who let us not forget still beat him in the popular vote). If the Democrats, as is likely, pick a populist left liberal against him in 2020 he will shift to the vacant centre if it offers him the best path of victory then
    While I agree with the broad thrust of your analysis - i.e. that Trump will likely move to the centre following the loss of the House, and that the Democrats may very well choose someone from the left of their party - I'm not convinced that Trump will stand again. He's old, not in perfect health, and by all accounts doesn't enjoy the job very much. I also suspect that, like with Reagan vs Ford in 1976, he might face a challenge in the primaries.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    GeoffM said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think Trump will survive the rest of his term and be re-elected in 2020. How? The Democrats will win the House next year as Republicans can't be bothered to vote for Ryan and his crew while they turn out to vote against Trump. They will also make gains in the Senate but the GOP will retain control.

    The Democrats will then try and push impeachment proceedings which will pass the House but get nowhere near the 2/3 majority needed in the Senate. Trump meanwhile will have to have moved back to the centre to work with Congress and Speaker Pelosi to get anything done, the Democrats meanwhile will see the mid-terms as vindication of a left/liberal agenda, pick Warren in 2020 (who Sanders will endorse after flirting with another run) and who Trump will then narrowly beat. Though I think Warren will do better in the Electoral College than Hillary without doing well enough to vote she will do worse in the popular vote

    I think the Democrats will really struggle to make gains in the Senate next year. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2018

    There are 33 Senators up for re-election, and only 8 of them are Republicans. Now, Nevada could flip to the Dems, and there are some suggestions that Arizona could go too.

    But against that, the Democrats are defending West Virginia (R+20 in latest poll), North Dakota (R+16), and Montana (R+11).

    The most likely outcome, I suspect is that the Dems pick up Nevada, and (maybe) Arizona, but drop West Virginia, North Dakota and Montana.
    Which would make it even more likely Trump survives any impeachment proceedings as there will not be enough support in the Senate to convict even if the House votes for his impeachment. (I think the Democrats will hold West Virginia though, their Senator there is more conservative than most establishment Republicans)
    Sen Joe Manchin is a likely new Energy Secretary if Perry goes to Homeland. Then the newly minted Dem -> GOP governor of WV gets to burnish his new Republican credentials by appointing a solidly Rep senator.
    Quite possible
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,245
    GeoffM said:

    rcs1000 said:

    GeoffM said:

    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/evanmcmurry/status/899283641913798658

    Wonder who long before Jared is referred to as a 'Globalist'?

    It isn't the front page *now* That photo was changed a few hours ago. A few of the comments below the line on that article are mine.

    And yes, Javanka are out of control. We'll end up with a globalist-Democrat White House without a change in President if he doesn't turn this tide. McMaster has to go.
    I find it odd that on the one hand you are in favour of the globalist, free trade, Minford, and on the other hand in favour of the nationalist, protectionist Bannon.

    It's almost like you pick your enemies first, and then the rest of your views follow.
    With apologies; my point about Minford was purely intended to be about the uses and quoting of 'experts' by whichever side suited them best.

    I wasn't making a point about his views or conclusions in this case - in favour or against - at all. Sorry if it came across differently.
    A serious question, then: do you really believe that the protectionist policies of Steve Bannon would be good for America or the world?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think Trump will survive the rest of his term and be re-elected in 2020. How? The Democrats will win the House next year as Republicans can't be bothered to vote for Ryan and his crew while they turn out to vote against Trump. They will also make gains in the Senate but the GOP will retain control.

    The Democrats will then try and push impeachment proceedings which will pass the House but get nowhere near the 2/3 majority needed in the Senate. Trump meanwhile will have to have moved back to the centre to work with Congress and Speaker Pelosi to get anything done, the Democrats meanwhile will see the mid-terms as vindication of a left/liberal agenda, pick Warren in 2020 (who Sanders will endorse after flirting with another run) and who Trump will then narrowly beat. Though I think Warren will do better in the Electoral College than Hillary without doing well enough to vote she will do worse in the popular vote

    I think the Democrats will really struggle to make gains in the Senate next year. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2018

    There are 33 Senators up for re-election, and only 8 of them are Republicans. Now, Nevada could flip to the Dems, and there are some suggestions that Arizona could go too.

    But against that, the Democrats are defending West Virginia (R+20 in latest poll), North Dakota (R+16), and Montana (R+11).

    The most likely outcome, I suspect is that the Dems pick up Nevada, and (maybe) Arizona, but drop West Virginia, North Dakota and Montana.
    Which would make it even more likely Trump survives any impeachment proceedings as there will not be enough support in the Senate to convict even if the House votes for his impeachment. (I think the Democrats will hold West Virginia though, their Senator there is more conservative than most establishment Republicans)
    You're right: the latest polling has Manchin 9 points ahead. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_West_Virginia,_2018)
    Yes this 2010 ad of him shooting a rifle gives a flavour of his politics
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIJORBRpOPM
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,038
    JosiasJessop said:

    There was a discussion about gas cylinder and bombs in the previous thread.

    Can anyone (legally!) explain how you actually get them to 'explode' (i.e. detonate) as opposed to just conflagrate rapidly? Surely the pressure relief valves would be difficult to defeat if you wanted to create a bleve?

    Cylinder bombs were tried by the Glasgow airport bombers, and the 'bomb' failed, as did their attempt in London a few days earlier. Both failed to cause much damage, although they had potential. ISTR some US high school attackers (Columbine?) also failed to get them to explode.

    So, how easy would it be to create an explosion in theory, as it seems more high-profile attempts have failed than succeeded?

    Needless to say, I have no intent to do this ...

    Gas canister based car and truck bombs are standard part of ISIS suicide attacks in syria and iraq.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,451
    edited August 2017
    Philip_Thompson said:

    The US system unlike ours has no real method for removing a sitting President during his term on simple grounds that he is just crap. Not sick or crooked, but just useless.

    I can't think of any historical parallel. Is there one?

    Um, Jeremy Corbyn?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,712
    edited August 2017
    rcs1000 said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    For those who think the UK's 2040 electric car target overly ambitious, China looks to be aiming to get there sooner....
    http://insideevs.com/excluding-tesla-global-automakers-demand-that-china-eases-impossible-electric-car-regulations/

    Regulation or no regulation, if electric cars are cheaper than petrol ones, have similar range, better performance and lower running costs, then the market for petrol cars is going to be very small indeed.
    There's a fair few conditionals in that statement.

    You also missed 'and we have charging points outside every home' ;)
    Apparently, we already have a system for transporting electrical energy around the country...

    More seriously, the price and efficiency of batteries (which is the only thing that matters) is coming down all the time. I've seen presentations from various battery manufacturers, and they all seem confident that we'll continue to see the same steady progress in terms of energy density and cost.

    I got a Tesla Roadster seven years ago when it first came out. The battery pack did 210 miles. They'll now swap it out for a cheaper, identically dimensioned one, that will do 340 miles.
    There's s system for transporting oil and gas around the country ...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLH_Pipeline_System
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_oil_pipeline_network

    ;)

    How much did your Roadster cost?

    The new Tesla model 3 highlights the problem. It's expensive compared to the everyday cars most people run, and the low-cost base model is fairly knobbled.

    As for having seen presentations from battery manufacturers that are confident ... well, yes, they would. You are, AIUI, involved in finance, and they want finance. I've been around and about the industry for a couple of decades, and every year must have seen several claims of improved battery tech. Yet the tech just dribbles improvements slowly.

    I'm hopeful that one of the new techs that are regularly splurted over the media will fix all energy storage problems. But they may not, and then it's a case of choosing which one of all the myriad of contenders is the real deal.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    edited August 2017
    rcs1000 said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    For those who think the UK's 2040 electric car target overly ambitious, China looks to be aiming to get there sooner....
    http://insideevs.com/excluding-tesla-global-automakers-demand-that-china-eases-impossible-electric-car-regulations/

    Regulation or no regulation, if electric cars are cheaper than petrol ones, have similar range, better performance and lower running costs, then the market for petrol cars is going to be very small indeed.
    There's a fair few conditionals in that statement.

    You also missed 'and we have charging points outside every home' ;)
    Apparently, we already have a system for transporting electrical energy around the country...

    More seriously, the price and efficiency of batteries (which is the only thing that matters) is coming down all the time. I've seen presentations from various battery manufacturers, and they all seem confident that we'll continue to see the same steady progress in terms of energy density and cost.

    I got a Tesla Roadster seven years ago when it first came out. The battery pack did 210 miles. They'll now swap it out for a cheaper, identically dimensioned one, that will do 340 miles.
    You have to ask to what extent this is just switching from burning 95 octane unleaded in cars to burning coal in power stations. And yes I know China has made great strides in renewables, but it's still 66% coal powered.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,712
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    There was a discussion about gas cylinder and bombs in the previous thread.

    Can anyone (legally!) explain how you actually get them to 'explode' (i.e. detonate) as opposed to just conflagrate rapidly? Surely the pressure relief valves would be difficult to defeat if you wanted to create a bleve?

    Cylinder bombs were tried by the Glasgow airport bombers, and the 'bomb' failed, as did their attempt in London a few days earlier. Both failed to cause much damage, although they had potential. ISTR some US high school attackers (Columbine?) also failed to get them to explode.

    So, how easy would it be to create an explosion in theory, as it seems more high-profile attempts have failed than succeeded?

    Needless to say, I have no intent to do this ...

    Gas canister based car and truck bombs are standard part of ISIS suicide attacks in syria and iraq.
    Ah, thanks. Do you have links?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,038
    JosiasJessop said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    There was a discussion about gas cylinder and bombs in the previous thread.

    Can anyone (legally!) explain how you actually get them to 'explode' (i.e. detonate) as opposed to just conflagrate rapidly? Surely the pressure relief valves would be difficult to defeat if you wanted to create a bleve?

    Cylinder bombs were tried by the Glasgow airport bombers, and the 'bomb' failed, as did their attempt in London a few days earlier. Both failed to cause much damage, although they had potential. ISTR some US high school attackers (Columbine?) also failed to get them to explode.

    So, how easy would it be to create an explosion in theory, as it seems more high-profile attempts have failed than succeeded?

    Needless to say, I have no intent to do this ...

    Gas canister based car and truck bombs are standard part of ISIS suicide attacks in syria and iraq.
    Ah, thanks. Do you have links?
    Not off the top of my head, but there has been reports on this by the likes of vice news and i think ch4 on the past.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    For those who think the UK's 2040 electric car target overly ambitious, China looks to be aiming to get there sooner....
    http://insideevs.com/excluding-tesla-global-automakers-demand-that-china-eases-impossible-electric-car-regulations/

    Regulation or no regulation, if electric cars are cheaper than petrol ones, have similar range, better performance and lower running costs, then the market for petrol cars is going to be very small indeed.
    There's a fair few conditionals in that statement.

    You also missed 'and we have charging points outside every home' ;)
    Apparently, we already have a system for transporting electrical energy around the country...

    More seriously, the price and efficiency of batteries (which is the only thing that matters) is coming down all the time. I've seen presentations from various battery manufacturers, and they all seem confident that we'll continue to see the same steady progress in terms of energy density and cost.

    I got a Tesla Roadster seven years ago when it first came out. The battery pack did 210 miles. They'll now swap it out for a cheaper, identically dimensioned one, that will do 340 miles.
    You have to ask to what extent this is just switching from burning 95 octane unleaded in cars to burning coal in power stations. And yes I know China has made great strides in renewables, but it's still 66% coal powered.
    Currently just 3.4% of all the country's electricity is coming from coal fired power stations.

    http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,245
    Ishmael_Z said:

    rcs1000 said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    For those who think the UK's 2040 electric car target overly ambitious, China looks to be aiming to get there sooner....
    http://insideevs.com/excluding-tesla-global-automakers-demand-that-china-eases-impossible-electric-car-regulations/

    Regulation or no regulation, if electric cars are cheaper than petrol ones, have similar range, better performance and lower running costs, then the market for petrol cars is going to be very small indeed.
    There's a fair few conditionals in that statement.

    You also missed 'and we have charging points outside every home' ;)
    Apparently, we already have a system for transporting electrical energy around the country...

    More seriously, the price and efficiency of batteries (which is the only thing that matters) is coming down all the time. I've seen presentations from various battery manufacturers, and they all seem confident that we'll continue to see the same steady progress in terms of energy density and cost.

    I got a Tesla Roadster seven years ago when it first came out. The battery pack did 210 miles. They'll now swap it out for a cheaper, identically dimensioned one, that will do 340 miles.
    You have to ask to what extent this is just switching from burning 95 octane unleaded in cars to burning coal in power stations. And yes I know China has made great strides in renewables, but it's still 66% coal powered.
    Coal is priced out of the UK electricity market, because coal fired power stations have higher capital and maintenance costs than natural gas ones, are far less flexible, and because natural gas is likely to be cheaper than coal in the UK for many decades.

    You can make the argument that we're moving from petrol to natural gas*; but that's still the right move because natural gas is incredibly abundant relative to oil.

    * And that ignores the fact that renewables are getting cheaper all the time too. And that they are a perfect fit for recharging batteries.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,908
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think Trump will survive the rest of his term and be re-elected in 2020. How? The Democrats will win the House next year as Republicans can't be bothered to vote for Ryan and his crew while they turn out to vote against Trump. They will also make gains in the Senate but the GOP will retain control.

    The Democrats will then try and push impeachment proceedings which will pass the House but get nowhere near the 2/3 majority needed in the Senate. Trump meanwhile will have to have moved back to the centre to work with Congress and Speaker Pelosi to get anything done, the Democrats meanwhile will see the mid-terms as vindication of a left/liberal agenda, pick Warren in 2020 (who Sanders will endorse after flirting with another run) and who Trump will then narrowly beat. Though I think Warren will do better in the Electoral College than Hillary without doing well enough to vote she will do worse in the popular vote

    I think the Democrats will really struggle to make gains in the Senate next year. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2018

    There are 33 Senators up for re-election, and only 8 of them are Republicans. Now, Nevada could flip to the Dems, and there are some suggestions that Arizona could go too.

    But against that, the Democrats are defending West Virginia (R+20 in latest poll), North Dakota (R+16), and Montana (R+11).

    The most likely outcome, I suspect is that the Dems pick up Nevada, and (maybe) Arizona, but drop West Virginia, North Dakota and Montana.
    Which would make it even more likely Trump survives any impeachment proceedings as there will not be enough support in the Senate to convict even if the House votes for his impeachment. (I think the Democrats will hold West Virginia though, their Senator there is more conservative than most establishment Republicans)
    Incumbency and personal recognition counts for much in senate elections. Given Heitkamp and Tester won previously in climates that were less favourable for democrats, why would they lose this time?

    Tester is a very good fit for Montana, I don't think he'll lose. Heitkamp's a toss up but I think she's popular enough. I'd suggest McCaskill is more vulnerable than either of those two.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,245
    JosiasJessop said:

    rcs1000 said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    For those who think the UK's 2040 electric car target overly ambitious, China looks to be aiming to get there sooner....
    http://insideevs.com/excluding-tesla-global-automakers-demand-that-china-eases-impossible-electric-car-regulations/

    Regulation or no regulation, if electric cars are cheaper than petrol ones, have similar range, better performance and lower running costs, then the market for petrol cars is going to be very small indeed.
    There's a fair few conditionals in that statement.

    You also missed 'and we have charging points outside every home' ;)
    Apparently, we already have a system for transporting electrical energy around the country...

    More seriously, the price and efficiency of batteries (which is the only thing that matters) is coming down all the time. I've seen presentations from various battery manufacturers, and they all seem confident that we'll continue to see the same steady progress in terms of energy density and cost.

    I got a Tesla Roadster seven years ago when it first came out. The battery pack did 210 miles. They'll now swap it out for a cheaper, identically dimensioned one, that will do 340 miles.
    There's s system for transporting oil and gas around the country ...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLH_Pipeline_System
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_oil_pipeline_network

    ;)

    How much did your Roadster cost?

    The new Tesla model 3 highlights the problem. It's expensive compared to the everyday cars most people run, and the low-cost base model is fairly knobbled.

    As for having seen presentations from battery manufacturers that are confident ... well, yes, they would. You are, AIUI, involved in finance, and they want finance. I've been around and about the industry for a couple of decades, and every year must have seen several claims of improved battery tech. Yet the tech just dribbles improvements slowly.

    I'm hopeful that one of the new techs that are regularly splurted over the media will fix all energy storage problems. But they may not, and then it's a case of choosing which one of all the myriad of contenders is the real deal.
    https://thinkprogress.org/chart-of-the-month-driven-by-tesla-battery-prices-cut-in-half-since-2014-718752a30a42/
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,712
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    There was a discussion about gas cylinder and bombs in the previous thread.

    Can anyone (legally!) explain how you actually get them to 'explode' (i.e. detonate) as opposed to just conflagrate rapidly? Surely the pressure relief valves would be difficult to defeat if you wanted to create a bleve?

    Cylinder bombs were tried by the Glasgow airport bombers, and the 'bomb' failed, as did their attempt in London a few days earlier. Both failed to cause much damage, although they had potential. ISTR some US high school attackers (Columbine?) also failed to get them to explode.

    So, how easy would it be to create an explosion in theory, as it seems more high-profile attempts have failed than succeeded?

    Needless to say, I have no intent to do this ...

    Gas canister based car and truck bombs are standard part of ISIS suicide attacks in syria and iraq.
    Ah, thanks. Do you have links?
    Not off the top of my head, but there has been reports on this by the likes of vice news and i think ch4 on the past.
    I'd be very interested, because a quick Google hasn't produced many such successful attacks, although perhaps my google-fu has failed me.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propane_bomb

    (I feel typing things like 'gas cylinder bomb' into Google is going to get me on certain watch lists ...)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,941
    Monksfield said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think Trump will survive the rest of his term and be re-elected in 2020. How? The Democrats will win the House next year as Republicans can't be bothered to vote for Ryan and his crew while they turn out to vote against Trump. They will also make gains in the Senate but the GOP will retain control.

    The Democrats will then try and push impeachment proceedings which will pass the House but get nowhere near the 2/3 majority needed in the Senate. Trump meanwhile will have to have moved back to the centre to work with Congress and Speaker Pelosi to get anything done, the Democrats meanwhile will see the mid-terms as vindication of a left/liberal agenda, pick Warren in 2020 (who Sanders will endorse after flirting with another run) and who Trump will then narrowly beat. Though I think Warren will do better in the Electoral College than Hillary without doing well enough to vote she will do worse in the popular vote

    I think the Democrats will really struggle to make gains in the Senate next year. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2018

    There are 33 Senators up for re-election, and only 8 of them are Republicans. Now, Nevada could flip to the Dems, and there are some suggestions that Arizona could go too.

    But against that, the Democrats are defending West Virginia (R+20 in latest poll), North Dakota (R+16), and Montana (R+11).

    The most likely outcome, I suspect is that the Dems pick up Nevada, and (maybe) Arizona, but drop West Virginia, North Dakota and Montana.
    Which would make it even more likely Trump survives any impeachment proceedings as there will not be enough support in the Senate to convict even if the House votes for his impeachment. (I think the Democrats will hold West Virginia though, their Senator there is more conservative than most establishment Republicans)
    Incumbency and personal recognition counts for much in senate elections. Given Heitkamp and Tester won previously in climates that were less favourable for democrats, why would they lose this time?

    Tester is a very good fit for Montana, I don't think he'll lose. Heitkamp's a toss up but I think she's popular enough. I'd suggest McCaskill is more vulnerable than either of those two.
    If there is something of a tidal wave to the Democrats nationally they may all be safe, even McCaskill
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    JosiasJessop said:

    rcs1000 said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    For those who think the UK's 2040 electric car target overly ambitious, China looks to be aiming to get there sooner....
    http://insideevs.com/excluding-tesla-global-automakers-demand-that-china-eases-impossible-electric-car-regulations/

    Regulation or no regulation, if electric cars are cheaper than petrol ones, have similar range, better performance and lower running costs, then the market for petrol cars is going to be very small indeed.
    There's a fair few conditionals in that statement.

    You also missed 'and we have charging points outside every home' ;)
    Apparently, we already have a system for transporting electrical energy around the country...

    More seriously, the price and efficiency of batteries (which is the only thing that matters) is coming down all the time. I've seen presentations from various battery manufacturers, and they all seem confident that we'll continue to see the same steady progress in terms of energy density and cost.

    I got a Tesla Roadster seven years ago when it first came out. The battery pack did 210 miles. They'll now swap it out for a cheaper, identically dimensioned one, that will do 340 miles.
    There's s system for transporting oil and gas around the country ...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLH_Pipeline_System
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_oil_pipeline_network

    ;)

    How much did your Roadster cost?

    The new Tesla model 3 highlights the problem. It's expensive compared to the everyday cars most people run, and the low-cost base model is fairly knobbled.

    As for having seen presentations from battery manufacturers that are confident ... well, yes, they would. You are, AIUI, involved in finance, and they want finance. I've been around and about the industry for a couple of decades, and every year must have seen several claims of improved battery tech. Yet the tech just dribbles improvements slowly.

    I'm hopeful that one of the new techs that are regularly splurted over the media will fix all energy storage problems. But they may not, and then it's a case of choosing which one of all the myriad of contenders is the real deal.
    Take out the early adopter premium and add in some decent economies of scale, and revise total cost of ownership downwards for reduced servicing costs plus (initially) favourable tax treatment, and cost is presumably not much of an issue.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,712
    rcs1000 said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    rcs1000 said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    For those who think the UK's 2040 electric car target overly ambitious, China looks to be aiming to get there sooner....
    http://insideevs.com/excluding-tesla-global-automakers-demand-that-china-eases-impossible-electric-car-regulations/

    Regulation or no regulation, if electric cars are cheaper than petrol ones, have similar range, better performance and lower running costs, then the market for petrol cars is going to be very small indeed.
    There's a fair few conditionals in that statement.

    You also missed 'and we have charging points outside every home' ;)
    Apparently, we already have a system for transporting electrical energy around the country...

    More seriously, the price and efficiency of batteries (which is the only thing that matters) is coming down all the time. I've seen presentations from various battery manufacturers, and they all seem confident that we'll continue to see the same steady progress in terms of energy density and cost.

    I got a Tesla Roadster seven years ago when it first came out. The battery pack did 210 miles. They'll now swap it out for a cheaper, identically dimensioned one, that will do 340 miles.
    There's s system for transporting oil and gas around the country ...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLH_Pipeline_System
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_oil_pipeline_network

    ;)

    How much did your Roadster cost?

    The new Tesla model 3 highlights the problem. It's expensive compared to the everyday cars most people run, and the low-cost base model is fairly knobbled.

    As for having seen presentations from battery manufacturers that are confident ... well, yes, they would. You are, AIUI, involved in finance, and they want finance. I've been around and about the industry for a couple of decades, and every year must have seen several claims of improved battery tech. Yet the tech just dribbles improvements slowly.

    I'm hopeful that one of the new techs that are regularly splurted over the media will fix all energy storage problems. But they may not, and then it's a case of choosing which one of all the myriad of contenders is the real deal.
    https://thinkprogress.org/chart-of-the-month-driven-by-tesla-battery-prices-cut-in-half-since-2014-718752a30a42/
    Surely that's just increased demand and production, not massively new tech?
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025