politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump is clearing the road to his own impeachment

Love the cartoon, and agreed, no value in either of these bets at all.

Despite the dip still extaordinary approval ratings considering what the man is like. What kind of people are these 'White Evangelicals' who appear to love him? Does their religion include not being judgemental? There can be no explanation other than that they are seeing a different version of Trump to the one we're seeing.

Roger said:

Despite the dip still extaordinary approval ratings considering what the man is like. What kind of people are these 'White Evangelicals' who appear to love him? Does their religion include not being judgemental? There can be no explanation other than that they are seeing a different version of Trump to the one we're seeing.

They take the view that my enemy's enemy is my friend.

ydoethur said:

I see that 'Grabcocque' has left us.

I think that can be described as 'good news.'

He can be funny, but I think he has issues.

Roger said:

Despite the dip still extaordinary approval ratings considering what the man is like. What kind of people are these 'White Evangelicals' who appear to love him? Does their religion include not being judgemental? There can be no explanation other than that they are seeing a different version of Trump to the one we're seeing.

There seems to be very little Jesus in white evangalism. The clue to their support for Trump is in the first word not the second. It’s remarkable how tolerant the right on both sides of the Atlantic are of him. It’s difficult to believe they would have given so much latitude to President Obama had he been a serially mendacious sexual predator with close links to a hostile power and racial supremacists. It’s amazing the leeway a Churchill bust and a permatan can buy you.

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

Roger said:

Despite the dip still extaordinary approval ratings considering what the man is like. What kind of people are these 'White Evangelicals' who appear to love him? Does their religion include not being judgemental? There can be no explanation other than that they are seeing a different version of Trump to the one we're seeing.

They take the view that my enemy's enemy is my friend.

I read somewhere that they take the view that he's akin to Cyrus, King of Persia, who, while not a particularly 'good' guy himself, allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem. They equate this with him being responsible for the forthcoming Rapture, consequent on the Last Battle of Armageddon.
Or something like that.

Don't blame me, I'm only reporting!

Cyrus is the usual comparison, who was quite enlightened for his time.

SouthamObserver said:

It’s difficult to believe they would have given so much latitude to President Obama had he been a serially mendacious sexual predator with close links to a hostile power and racial supremacists.

Possibly not that specific block, but I must confess I wonder. Look at the leeway the US public gave Clinton who ticked at least two of those boxes.

SouthamObserver said:

It’s amazing the leeway a Churchill bust and a permatan can buy you.

Are you saying he's oranged matters in his favour?

ydoethur said:

Sean_F said:

ydoethur said:

I see that 'Grabcocque' has left us.

I think that can be described as 'good news.'

He can be funny, but I think he has issues.

Speaking of avowed tossers* with issues:

Trump’s relationship with the truth is hardly straightforward.

I have to disagree there. I think the premise is incorrect. Trump has no relationship with the truth.

*My computer changed that to 'toddlers'. While a phrase about toys and prams springs to mind over the shutdown, I changed it back as it was unfair to toddlers to suggest they bore any resemblance to Trump.

He lies every time he speaks.

Talking of liars, I see that Boris ' new girlfriend calls him "my bozzy bear."

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

I see that 'Grabcocque' has left us.

I think that can be described as 'good news.'

Gospel, brother.

Every Dacia!

rcs1000 said:

Sean_F said:

Roger said:

Despite the dip still extaordinary approval ratings considering what the man is like. What kind of people are these 'White Evangelicals' who appear to love him? Does their religion include not being judgemental? There can be no explanation other than that they are seeing a different version of Trump to the one we're seeing.

They take the view that my enemy's enemy is my friend.

Trump is appointing judges who may - or may not - overturn one of the very worse pieces of judicial activism ever...

But of course, Roe vs Wade was the best thing that ever happened to "the evangelical right". It motivated people who felt they had been cheated, and it meant those on the other side of the debate had no reason to go to the ballot boxes.

Overturning Roe vs Wade will - in all probability - result in the ballot box legalisation of abortion in pretty much all of America. Abortion will probably be more available, not less.

That 's why SCOTUS will probably help Red State governments whittle away at abortion, rather than reverse it completely.

Sean_F said:

OldKingCole said:

Sean_F said:

Roger said:

Despite the dip still extaordinary approval ratings considering what the man is like. What kind of people are these 'White Evangelicals' who appear to love him? Does their religion include not being judgemental? There can be no explanation other than that they are seeing a different version of Trump to the one we're seeing.

They take the view that my enemy's enemy is my friend.

I read somewhere that they take the view that he's akin to Cyrus, King of Persia, who, while not a particularly 'good' guy himself, allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem. They equate this with him being responsible for the forthcoming Rapture, consequent on the Last Battle of Armageddon.
Or something like that.

Don't blame me, I'm only reporting!

Cyrus is the usual comparison, who was quite enlightened for his time.

Which makes him unlike Trump, I should have added.

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

It’s difficult to believe they would have given so much latitude to President Obama had he been a serially mendacious sexual predator with close links to a hostile power and racial supremacists.

Possibly not that specific block, but I must confess I wonder. Look at the leeway the US public gave Clinton who ticked at least two of those boxes.

SouthamObserver said:

It’s amazing the leeway a Churchill bust and a permatan can buy you.

Are you saying he's oranged matters in his favour?

Clinton lied about his sexual dalliances. He was almost certainly a serial adulterer. I wouldn't like to speculate about his - errr - persuasive powers, and whether he crossed over any lines.

Trump is Clinton to another level. He has almost all of Clinton's weaknesses, with few of his strengths.

I remember spluttering coffee when I read about Dick Morris' defence of Bill Clinton, which was that Hillary just "isn't into men."

The problem was that Bill was into far too many women.

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

It’s difficult to believe they would have given so much latitude to President Obama had he been a serially mendacious sexual predator with close links to a hostile power and racial supremacists.

Possibly not that specific block, but I must confess I wonder. Look at the leeway the US public gave Clinton who ticked at least two of those boxes.

SouthamObserver said:

It’s amazing the leeway a Churchill bust and a permatan can buy you.

Are you saying he's oranged matters in his favour?

Clinton lied about his sexual dalliances. He was almost certainly a serial adulterer. I wouldn't like to speculate about his - errr - persuasive powers, and whether he crossed over any lines.

Trump is Clinton to another level. He has almost all of Clinton's weaknesses, with few of his strengths.

Clinton behaved like many other US presidents had in previous eras when there was more deference and less scrutiny - not that this is an excuse. Trump is totally unprecedented.

After a little thought I recall the reference to Trump and Cyrus (etc) In was in a piece by Julian Borger in the Guardian on Jan 11th, entitled '‘Brought to Jesus’: the evangelical grip on the Trump administration' and discussed the evangelical Christian basis for Mike Pompeo's strategy as Secretary of State, describing him as having evangelical theory as a driving force.

Which if it regards Armageddon and Rapture as both desirable and achievable is more than a little alarming!

Sean_F said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

It’s difficult to believe they would have given so much latitude to President Obama had he been a serially mendacious sexual predator with close links to a hostile power and racial supremacists.

Possibly not that specific block, but I must confess I wonder. Look at the leeway the US public gave Clinton who ticked at least two of those boxes.

SouthamObserver said:

It’s amazing the leeway a Churchill bust and a permatan can buy you.

Are you saying he's oranged matters in his favour?

Clinton lied about his sexual dalliances. He was almost certainly a serial adulterer. I wouldn't like to speculate about his - errr - persuasive powers, and whether he crossed over any lines.

Trump is Clinton to another level. He has almost all of Clinton's weaknesses, with few of his strengths.

I remember spluttering coffee when I read about Dick Morris' defence of Bill Clinton, which was that Hillary just "isn't into men."

The problem was that Bill was into far too many women.

One wonders how long Boris's current 'arrangements' will last!

What do women see in him?

Money/Power/Fame.

Do you think Melania is with Trump because she's into his toadstool shaped cock?

Dura_Ace said:

Sean_F said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

It’s difficult to believe they would have given so much latitude to President Obama had he been a serially mendacious sexual predator with close links to a hostile power and racial supremacists.

Possibly not that specific block, but I must confess I wonder. Look at the leeway the US public gave Clinton who ticked at least two of those boxes.

SouthamObserver said:

It’s amazing the leeway a Churchill bust and a permatan can buy you.

Are you saying he's oranged matters in his favour?

Clinton lied about his sexual dalliances. He was almost certainly a serial adulterer. I wouldn't like to speculate about his - errr - persuasive powers, and whether he crossed over any lines.

Trump is Clinton to another level. He has almost all of Clinton's weaknesses, with few of his strengths.

I remember spluttering coffee when I read about Dick Morris' defence of Bill Clinton, which was that Hillary just "isn't into men."

The problem was that Bill was into far too many women.

One wonders how long Boris's current 'arrangements' will last!

What do women see in him?

Money/Power/Fame.

Do you think Melania is with Trump because she's into his toadstool shaped cock?

Button mushroom, surely? Toadstools are much bigger.

SouthamObserver said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

It’s difficult to believe they would have given so much latitude to President Obama had he been a serially mendacious sexual predator with close links to a hostile power and racial supremacists.

Possibly not that specific block, but I must confess I wonder. Look at the leeway the US public gave Clinton who ticked at least two of those boxes.

SouthamObserver said:

It’s amazing the leeway a Churchill bust and a permatan can buy you.

Are you saying he's oranged matters in his favour?

Clinton lied about his sexual dalliances. He was almost certainly a serial adulterer. I wouldn't like to speculate about his - errr - persuasive powers, and whether he crossed over any lines.

Trump is Clinton to another level. He has almost all of Clinton's weaknesses, with few of his strengths.

I remember spluttering coffee when I read about Dick Morris' defence of Bill Clinton, which was that Hillary just "isn't into men."

The problem was that Bill was into far too many women.

One wonders how long Boris's current 'arrangements' will last!

One of the very few Brexit bonuses along with the forthcoming exposure of English nationalist delusion is that Johnson is now seen for the mendacious, bone idle lightweight he is. Unfortunately, that may not prevent him becoming PM.

The suggestion of the article is that his bone isn't idle...

In the entire run of history, I think at least since the fall of Rome Donald Trump is a one off.

Unusually I can understand the horror of the left that someone as uncomfortable to reason has reached the most powerful office in the world's principal democracy. However, this concern is misplaced and we should be relieved it has happened in the United States. Uniquely, the US Constitution, written at a time of dispute between overly strong-willed antagonists, is drafted on the assumption that all Presidents are potentially malign and probably intent only upon converting the office from supreme leader to Supreme Leader.

I doubt there are that many countries, very few outside western Europe where the constitution is so strong as to hold a complete nutter in a straight jacket. Look at what Putin, who could have been a Gareth Fitzgerald if he had been so minded has paralised the whole of central and eastern Europe.

Even in the European Union an extremist leader, even one with little apparent power has been able to leave a legacy of misery and mistrust: I speak of Jacques Delors. In the United States after four years, or at worst eight the influence of any President, however reprehensible, is forever dismissed into history.

Sean_F said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sean_F said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

It’s difficult to believe they would have given so much latitude to President Obama had he been a serially mendacious sexual predator with close links to a hostile power and racial supremacists.

Possibly not that specific block, but I must confess I wonder. Look at the leeway the US public gave Clinton who ticked at least two of those boxes.

SouthamObserver said:

It’s amazing the leeway a Churchill bust and a permatan can buy you.

Are you saying he's oranged matters in his favour?

Clinton lied about his sexual dalliances. He was almost certainly a serial adulterer. I wouldn't like to speculate about his - errr - persuasive powers, and whether he crossed over any lines.

Trump is Clinton to another level. He has almost all of Clinton's weaknesses, with few of his strengths.

I remember spluttering coffee when I read about Dick Morris' defence of Bill Clinton, which was that Hillary just "isn't into men."

The problem was that Bill was into far too many women.

One wonders how long Boris's current 'arrangements' will last!

What do women see in him?

Money/Power/Fame.

Do you think Melania is with Trump because she's into his toadstool shaped cock?

Some women like toadstool-shaped cocks.

you speak from experience?

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

It’s difficult to believe they would have given so much latitude to President Obama had he been a serially mendacious sexual predator with close links to a hostile power and racial supremacists.

Possibly not that specific block, but I must confess I wonder. Look at the leeway the US public gave Clinton who ticked at least two of those boxes.

SouthamObserver said:

It’s amazing the leeway a Churchill bust and a permatan can buy you.

Are you saying he's oranged matters in his favour?

Clinton lied about his sexual dalliances. He was almost certainly a serial adulterer. I wouldn't like to speculate about his - errr - persuasive powers, and whether he crossed over any lines.

Trump is Clinton to another level. He has almost all of Clinton's weaknesses, with few of his strengths.

I remember spluttering coffee when I read about Dick Morris' defence of Bill Clinton, which was that Hillary just "isn't into men."

The problem was that Bill was into far too many women.

One wonders how long Boris's current 'arrangements' will last!

One of the very few Brexit bonuses along with the forthcoming exposure of English nationalist delusion is that Johnson is now seen for the mendacious, bone idle lightweight he is. Unfortunately, that may not prevent him becoming PM.

The suggestion of the article is that his bone isn't idle...

Ha, ha!!!

SquareRoot said:

Sean_F said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sean_F said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

It’s difficult to believe they would have given so much latitude to President Obama had he been a serially mendacious sexual predator with close links to a hostile power and racial supremacists.

Possibly not that specific block, but I must confess I wonder. Look at the leeway the US public gave Clinton who ticked at least two of those boxes.

SouthamObserver said:

It’s amazing the leeway a Churchill bust and a permatan can buy you.

Are you saying he's oranged matters in his favour?

Clinton lied about his sexual dalliances. He was almost certainly a serial adulterer. I wouldn't like to speculate about his - errr - persuasive powers, and whether he crossed over any lines.

Trump is Clinton to another level. He has almost all of Clinton's weaknesses, with few of his strengths.

I remember spluttering coffee when I read about Dick Morris' defence of Bill Clinton, which was that Hillary just "isn't into men."

The problem was that Bill was into far too many women.

One wonders how long Boris's current 'arrangements' will last!

What do women see in him?

Money/Power/Fame.

Do you think Melania is with Trump because she's into his toadstool shaped cock?

Some women like toadstool-shaped cocks.

you speak from experience?

According to a friend.

Mr. F, well, he let John be King of England, so no arguing with that statement.

@OldKingCole
Many. In fact I was talking to Year 11 about this only the other week.

The key thing with A-levels is (1) find out what the requirements of the potential university courses are (in terms of grades and subjects) (2) consider what subjects are likely to get those grades. So if he's looking at Oxbridge, encourage him to think about which subjects he will be most likely to get A*/A in. If that's History, do History. If it's languages, go for that.

The problem with History viewed in isolation is it's not a direct link to many professions, unlike say, Business where the link is obvious. Off the top of my head, the two main ones would be law and education (broadly defined).

However, it's a very good bolt on to many other combinations to add breadth. So, for example, if doing a Mathematics and Physics combo it can be worth doing History to learn about extended reading and writing which is enormously helpful in doing job applications. Or, if doing economics and geography, history's a good option to learn about adding the wider context. If he doesn't yet know what he wants to do in his life, History has the breadth to keep his options open later. At degree level, it's very versatile as well - you can do a first degree in History and then add in say Politics or Economics later through a study of cliometrics (as I did). History can lead to a great many useful postgrad conversion courses.

As I've said on here before, there are two subjects that are light years ahead of the others in terms of complexity and prestige at A-level - Maths and Physics. But after that, History along with Geography, Chemistry and Languages would be in the next level. Which may also be a point to consider for your grandson.

It is, following all that, worth considering whether the teachers are good and he gets on with them. Because if they are, that in itself has a bearing on how well he's likely to do, which has a knock on effect on university choices and career pathways. As one of the comparatively few people to have both studied and taught all the way from primary schoolchildren to postgrads, I can honestly say that A-levels are by far the hardest course he will ever do - indeed, I think they're the toughest school leaving qualification in the world. Arguably, indeed, following the Govester's shambles they are too tough. So getting the subjects right for him is important.

Those are generic thoughts. Without knowing what your grandson's particular circumstances are, I can't offer anything more specific. Everyone's different. Bottom line is, if he's good at it, wants to do it and he doesn't want to do a course in say medicine where they demand all sciences, it's a serious option and he should consider it. Career prospects will sort themselves out if he gets the rest right.

And on your other question - our mocks are next month. And it's the summer I'm looking forward to!

I think the 5/4 on impeachment are actually pretty good odds.

It seems fairly obvious that impeachable offences occurred in relation to obstruction, and increasingly probable that Mueller has the evidence to reach that conclusion. That being the case, I think it's hard to see how a House of Representatives with quite a strong Democrat majority would NOT pass articles of impeachment in those circumstances.

Pelosi is, rightly, quite worried about being seen to be fixated on impeachment rather than "the People's business". But damning Mueller conclusions would rather force her hand. She can't really say, "Mueller says there is strong evidence of obstruction of justice but we, the Democrats, have rather an interesting Farms Bill to consider so can't be bothered with it..."

Senate wouldn't convict unless something big changes, of course. But that isn't the bet.

edmundintokyo said:

ydoethur said:

I see that 'Grabcocque' has left us.

I think that can be described as 'good news.'

Has he? How do you know? Shame if true, pb's a great site but it gets a bit predictable when it's all the same old orthodox set of takes.

https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/profile/grabcocque

ydoethur said:

@OldKingCole
Many. In fact I was talking to Year 11 about this only the other week.

The key thing with A-levels is (1) find out what the requirements of the potential university courses are (in terms of grades and subjects) (2) consider what subjects are likely to get those grades. So if he's looking at Oxbridge, encourage him to think about which subjects he will be most likely to get A*/A in. If that's History, do History. If it's languages, go for that.

The problem with History viewed in isolation is it's not a direct link to many professions, unlike say, Business where the link is obvious. Off the top of my head, the two main ones would be law and education (broadly defined).



It is, following all that, worth considering whether the teachers are good and he gets on with them. Because if they are, that in itself has a bearing on how well he's likely to do, which has a knock on effect on university choices and career pathways. As one of the comparatively few people to have both studied and taught all the way from primary schoolchildren to postgrads, I can honestly say that A-levels are by far the hardest course he will ever do - indeed, I think they're the toughest school leaving qualification in the world. Arguably, indeed, following the Govester's shambles they are too tough. So getting the subjects right for him is important.

Those are generic thoughts. Without knowing what your grandson's particular circumstances are, I can't offer anything more specific. Everyone's different. Bottom line is, if he's good at it, wants to do it and he doesn't want to do a course in say medicine where they demand all sciences, it's a serious option and he should consider it. Career prospects will sort themselves out if he gets the rest right.

And on your other question - our mocks are next month. And it's the summer I'm looking forward to!

It's sad that the days are gone when doing the subject you found most fulfilling was the principal consideration.

Your first point is important and certainly worth checking out. For example it is (or was, long ago) a requirement to do History at Cambridge that you had a language at A level, which probably suprised some potential applicants.

I would argue the skills you learn in history, of identifying the key arguments and facts from large amounts of reading, testing arguments against the evidence, and putting together a credible account from incomplete and partial (biased) sources, recognising where there are gaps or weaknesses that might allow for an alternative explanation, are very useful for a wide range of occupations.

It's a shame that studying nowadays seems to be so focused on tying in with particular jobs. Both my nephews started degree courses that as far as I can see consisted mostly of bookkeeping (basic accounting); neither of them found this fulfilling and they both dropped out and got jobs instead.

edmundintokyo said:

ydoethur said:

I see that 'Grabcocque' has left us.

I think that can be described as 'good news.'

Has he? How do you know? Shame if true, pb's a great site but it gets a bit predictable when it's all the same old orthodox set of takes.

His user ID shows as banned.

I never found out which former poster reinvented he was, but he did add to discussions and when he wasn't obviously trolling his arguments were usually worth thinking about. Banning him for a single comment last night when SeanT's rants have contained worse looks to me like a double standard.

IanB2 said:

edmundintokyo said:

ydoethur said:

I see that 'Grabcocque' has left us.

I think that can be described as 'good news.'

Has he? How do you know? Shame if true, pb's a great site but it gets a bit predictable when it's all the same old orthodox set of takes.

His user ID shows as banned.

I never found out which former poster reinvented he was, but he did add to discussions and when he wasn't obviously trolling his arguments were usually worth thinking about. Banning him for a single comment last night when SeanT's rants have contained worse looks to me like a double standard.

Grabcocque’s real name (and his entertaining history as a Tory council candidate) is trivially Googlable. I believe he used to post under his real name years ago.

El_Capitano said:

IanB2 said:

edmundintokyo said:

ydoethur said:

I see that 'Grabcocque' has left us.

I think that can be described as 'good news.'

Has he? How do you know? Shame if true, pb's a great site but it gets a bit predictable when it's all the same old orthodox set of takes.

His user ID shows as banned.

I never found out which former poster reinvented he was, but he did add to discussions and when he wasn't obviously trolling his arguments were usually worth thinking about. Banning him for a single comment last night when SeanT's rants have contained worse looks to me like a double standard.

Grabcocque’s real name (and his entertaining history as a Tory council candidate) is trivially Googlable. I believe he used to post under his real name years ago.

So they are! Tower Hamlets, 'nuff said

Foxy said:

OldKingCole said:

Dr ydoethur, are you getting demob happy for half-term already? My grandson has just done his GCSE mock exams, so surely you should be marking.

Incidentally, he is, apparently, according to his Grammar School history master, very good at the subject. However his father is worried about a career resulting from the study of same. Have you any thoughts?

I think @ydoethur gives good advice on the subject, particularly that a student does well on a course that they enjoy, with teachers that they like.

Foxjr did history A level, but dropped it at the end of the first year. He found the essay writing and background reading too intense while also doing English and Theatre Studies, which also have very extensive requirements for writing and background work. His fourth was Art, so almost a relaxation from the book driven other subjects.

At the time it was normal to start 4 AS levels and finish 3 at A2, so this worked for him, but the new A level courses are heavier in workload and there is no AS from dropping one. I would seriously advise against doing 3 A levels with intense essay writing coursework requirements, unless he really, really enjoys doing them. A levels are much more intense than GCSE, and they were the most difficult exams I have ever done too.

My advice would be to consider the whole trio of A levels and how they hang together. Incidentally, History A level would be fine for Medicine. We do not require all Sciences. A at A level Chemistry is mandatory, and another Science or Maths too, but the third A level can be from the liberal Arts and indeed often adds something interesting.

Indeed? I didn't know that and it's well worth knowing. Does that requirement vary between universities?

Edit - incidentally, I'm also very surprised to learn Chem is preferred to Bio. This shows how many from my school apply to do medicine...

MikeSmithson said:

Don't rush into the impeachment narrative. This is main story in NYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/18/us/politics/buzzfeed-cohen-russia-tower.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

They must be loving the Mueller denial after the embarrassment of getting scooped by Buzzfeed.

ydoethur said:

IanB2 said:

It's sad that the days are gone when doing the subject you found most fulfilling was the principal consideration.

Your first point is important and certainly worth checking out. For example it is (or was, long ago) a requirement to do History at Cambridge that you had a language at A level, which probably suprised some potential applicants.

I would argue the skills you learn in history, of identifying the key arguments and facts from large amounts of reading, testing arguments against the evidence, and putting together a credible account from incomplete and partial (biased) sources, recognising where there are gaps or weaknesses that might allow for an alternative explanation, are very useful for a wide range of occupations.

It's a shame that studying nowadays seems to be so focused on tying in with particular jobs. Both my nephews started degree courses that as far as I can see consisted mostly of bookkeeping (basic accounting); neither of them found this fulfilling and they both dropped out and got jobs instead.

So far as I know, although I am not an expert on current Cambridge requirements and TSE may know different, that is no longer the case.

To an extent you are correct, however, the new A-level and GCSE are not particularly good at that. That is why I would argue the key benefit of History is the breadth it adds to so many other combinations.

The other thing I would definitely add is that with A-levels the way they are for many people there will soon be no significant advantage to doing a Bachelor's degree over doing A-levels (and I say that as a former lecturer). Therefore outwith some subjects I think it will not be long before a number of universities mimic Scotland in offering the Masters as standard.

Insofar as writing anything longer than 140 characters remains a life skill, doing a subject that requires some must be a good thing.

My knowledge of Cambridge entry requirements is over thirty years dated, but the two A level requirements for degree level History used to be A level history and an A level language (modern or classical). I know this because I switched to history for my third year without having either. My choice of courses was more restricted as a consequence.

Has Grabcoque been impeached?

I would support his return, assuming he apologises for upsetting G.

El_Capitano said:

IanB2 said:

edmundintokyo said:

ydoethur said:

I see that 'Grabcocque' has left us.

I think that can be described as 'good news.'

Has he? How do you know? Shame if true, pb's a great site but it gets a bit predictable when it's all the same old orthodox set of takes.

His user ID shows as banned.

I never found out which former poster reinvented he was, but he did add to discussions and when he wasn't obviously trolling his arguments were usually worth thinking about. Banning him for a single comment last night when SeanT's rants have contained worse looks to me like a double standard.

Grabcocque’s real name (and his entertaining history as a Tory council candidate) is trivially Googlable. I believe he used to post under his real name years ago.

Blimey. It really is trivially Googlable!

twistedfirestopper3 said:

In other news.....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/19/labour-would-lose-voters-with-stop-brexit-policy-poll-suggests

Labour would lose votes with any Brexit policy, which explains it all. Trouble is, they appear to be losing votes without one as well.

Gardenwalker said:

I’m a bit annoyed that grabcoque was banned. His invective was often very funny, and pretty much all we had now that SeanT has found marital bliss.

And frankly, he had a point about Big G’s pearl clutching - a point carried too far, sure - but the site will be drearier without him.

Obviously such things are at owners discretion but in principle I entirely agree with your assessment

IanB2 said:

SandyRentool said:

IanB2 said:

El_Capitano said:

IanB2 said:

edmundintokyo said:

ydoethur said:

I see that 'Grabcocque' has left us.

I think that can be described as 'good news.'

Has he? How do you know? Shame if true, pb's a great site but it gets a bit predictable when it's all the same old orthodox set of takes.

His user ID shows as banned.

I never found out which former poster reinvented he was, but he did add to discussions and when he wasn't obviously trolling his arguments were usually worth thinking about. Banning him for a single comment last night when SeanT's rants have contained worse looks to me like a double standard.

Grabcocque’s real name (and his entertaining history as a Tory council candidate) is trivially Googlable. I believe he used to post under his real name years ago.

So they are! Tower Hamlets, 'nuff said

For those of us to thick to find out for ourselves, what's the story?

As it involves alleged offences, probably best to search it out rather than post it here. It really is very easy.

I've caught up now - yes that's who I thought it was.

Roger said:

ydoethur said:

I see that 'Grabcocque' has left us.

I think that can be described as 'good news.'

I can't claim to be an authority on Grabcoque but having just flicked through the last thread I can understand where he's coming from. Like a lot of us he's a very angry Remainer who is swinging wildly. It's very difficult to understand why Leavers want to leave.

Just to check - you do know he voted Leave?

ydoethur said:

I see that 'Grabcocque' has left us.

I think that can be described as 'good news.'

has he been barred

Roger said:

ydoethur said:

I see that 'Grabcocque' has left us.

I think that can be described as 'good news.'

I can't claim to be an authority on Grabcoque but having just flicked through the last thread I can understand where he's coming from. Like a lot of us he's a very angry Remainer who is swinging wildly. It's very difficult to understand why Leavers want to leave.


Slogans yes but no serious explanation of why those of us to whom it makes a difference should have our livelihoods and wellbeing wrecked on a whim or worse; I heard a phone- in the other day when someone was asked what they meant by 'losing sovereignty'? 'they're telling us we have to have straight bananas'. On being by the interviewer that was found to be untrue they said 'Oh. Well they made us bring in decimalisation'.

The point is that Leaving is going to cost maybe 25% of us in very direct terms and another say 20% in the way we see ourselves. And for what?

That's why Remainers are angry and see Leavers as a malevolent wrecking ball. Old people who want to turn the clocks back. Right wing nationalists with ugly motives and the majority who just think that as it doesn't affect them so why not? There's a lot to be angry about

Roger, for your explanation I suggest you look towards the arrogant shits in Brussels who strutt about thinking they own Europe.

SandyRentool said:

Roger said:

ydoethur said:

I see that 'Grabcocque' has left us.

I think that can be described as 'good news.'

I can't claim to be an authority on Grabcoque but having just flicked through the last thread I can understand where he's coming from. Like a lot of us he's a very angry Remainer who is swinging wildly. It's very difficult to understand why Leavers want to leave.


Slogans yes but no serious explanation of why those of us to whom it makes a difference should have our livelihoods and wellbeing wrecked on a whim or worse; I heard a phone- in the other day when someone was asked what they meant by 'losing sovereignty'? 'they're telling us we have to have straight bananas'. On being by the interviewer that was found to be untrue they said 'Oh. Well they made us bring in decimalisation'.

The point is that Leaving is going to cost maybe 25% of us in very direct terms and another say 20% in the way we see ourselves. And for what?

That's why Remainers are angry and see Leavers as a malevolent wrecking ball. Old people who want to turn the clocks back. Right wing nationalists with ugly motives and the majority who just think that as it doesn't affect them so why not? There's a lot to be angry about

Roger, for your explanation I suggest you look towards the arrogant shits in Brussels who strutt about thinking they own Europe.

In my best Bernard Bresslaw voice: 'They do.'

Roger said:

ydoethur said:

I see that 'Grabcocque' has left us.

I think that can be described as 'good news.'

I can't claim to be an authority on Grabcoque but having just flicked through the last thread I can understand where he's coming from. Like a lot of us he's a very angry Remainer who is swinging wildly. It's very difficult to understand why Leavers want to leave.


Slogans yes but no serious explanation of why those of us to whom it makes a difference should have our livelihoods and wellbeing wrecked on a whim or worse; I heard a phone- in the other day when someone was asked what they meant by 'losing sovereignty'? 'they're telling us we have to have straight bananas'. On being told by the interviewer that was found to be untrue the caller said 'Oh. Well they made us bring in decimalisation'.

The point is that Leaving is going to cost maybe 25% of us in very direct terms and another say 20% in the way we see ourselves. And for what?

That's why Remainers are angry and see Leavers as a malevolent wrecking ball. Old people who want to turn the clocks back. Right wing nationalists with ugly motives and the majority who just think that as it doesn't affect them so why not? There's a lot to be angry about

That doesn't excuse his very personal attack on Big G though. He could be occasionally entertaining, even funny sometimes. But the reason that this site is better than 99% of the rest of the internet is because by and large debate is civil and personal attacks aren't allowed.

Sorry but there is no excuse for screaming in an old man's face about death.

IanB2 said:

kyf_100 said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

In other news.....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/19/labour-would-lose-voters-with-stop-brexit-policy-poll-suggests

I think Pong's suggestion last night, that Corbyn offer a referendum between hard brexit and remain probably wouldn't lose him voters if May sticks to her deal.

It would be hard to paint him as a remainer if he's offering a harder Brexit than the one May has to offer, and he can sit out the actual campaign itself and remain neutral.

If 'hard Brexit' can be defined and a deal on that basis is achievable with the EU, I guess that might be a runner. If it simply means 'crash out' then that will never go to a vote, and no responsible politician can afford to entertain such.

Ah. Now, about Corbyn and 'responsibility...'

Roger said:

ydoethur said:

I see that 'Grabcocque' has left us.

I think that can be described as 'good news.'

I can't claim to be an authority on Grabcoque but having just flicked through the last thread I can understand where he's coming from. Like a lot of us he's a very angry Remainer who is swinging wildly. It's very difficult to understand why Leavers want to leave.


Slogans yes but no serious explanation of why those of us to whom it makes a difference should have our livelihoods and wellbeing wrecked on a whim or worse; I heard a phone- in the other day when someone was asked what they meant by 'losing sovereignty'? 'they're telling us we have to have straight bananas'. On being told by the interviewer that was found to be untrue the caller said 'Oh. Well they made us bring in decimalisation'.

The point is that Leaving is going to cost maybe 25% of us in very direct terms and another say 20% in the way we see ourselves. And for what?

That's why Remainers are angry and see Leavers as a malevolent wrecking ball. Old people who want to turn the clocks back. Right wing nationalists with ugly motives and the majority who just think that as it doesn't affect them so why not? There's a lot to be angry about

He voted to Leave....

SandyRentool said:

IanB2 said:

El_Capitano said:

IanB2 said:

edmundintokyo said:

ydoethur said:

I see that 'Grabcocque' has left us.

I think that can be described as 'good news.'

Has he? How do you know? Shame if true, pb's a great site but it gets a bit predictable when it's all the same old orthodox set of takes.

His user ID shows as banned.

I never found out which former poster reinvented he was, but he did add to discussions and when he wasn't obviously trolling his arguments were usually worth thinking about. Banning him for a single comment last night when SeanT's rants have contained worse looks to me like a double standard.

Grabcocque’s real name (and his entertaining history as a Tory council candidate) is trivially Googlable. I believe he used to post under his real name years ago.

So they are! Tower Hamlets, 'nuff said

For those of us to thick to find out for ourselves, what's the story?

Have you ever put on a John Prescott mask? If so you probably found yourself causing some kind of disturbance.

Stay away from the John Prescott masks.

edmundintokyo said:

SandyRentool said:

IanB2 said:

El_Capitano said:

IanB2 said:

edmundintokyo said:

ydoethur said:

I see that 'Grabcocque' has left us.

I think that can be described as 'good news.'

Has he? How do you know? Shame if true, pb's a great site but it gets a bit predictable when it's all the same old orthodox set of takes.

His user ID shows as banned.

I never found out which former poster reinvented he was, but he did add to discussions and when he wasn't obviously trolling his arguments were usually worth thinking about. Banning him for a single comment last night when SeanT's rants have contained worse looks to me like a double standard.

Grabcocque’s real name (and his entertaining history as a Tory council candidate) is trivially Googlable. I believe he used to post under his real name years ago.

So they are! Tower Hamlets, 'nuff said

For those of us to thick to find out for ourselves, what's the story?

Have you ever put on a John Prescott mask? If so you probably found yourself causing some kind of disturbance.

Stay away from the John Prescott masks.

His face is a Temple?

Roger said:

ydoethur said:

I see that 'Grabcocque' has left us.

I think that can be described as 'good news.'

I can't claim to be an authority on Grabcoque but having just flicked through the last thread I can understand where he's coming from. Like a lot of us he's a very angry Remainer who is swinging wildly. It's very difficult to understand why Leavers want to leave.


Slogans yes but no serious explanation of why those of us to whom it makes a difference should have our livelihoods and wellbeing wrecked on a whim or worse; I heard a phone- in the other day when someone was asked what they meant by 'losing sovereignty'? 'they're telling us we have to have straight bananas'. On being told by the interviewer that was found to be untrue the caller said 'Oh. Well they made us bring in decimalisation'.

The point is that Leaving is going to cost maybe 25% of us in very direct terms and another say 20% in the way we see ourselves. And for what?

That's why Remainers are angry and see Leavers as a malevolent wrecking ball. Old people who want to turn the clocks back. Right wing nationalists with ugly motives and the majority who just think that as it doesn't affect them so why not? There's a lot to be angry about

Roger, I hate to break this to you, but life doesn't revolve around you. Why don't you catch the eye of that handsome waiter, get another espresso and watch Nice pass you by?

IanB2 said:

kyf_100 said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

In other news.....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/19/labour-would-lose-voters-with-stop-brexit-policy-poll-suggests

I think Pong's suggestion last night, that Corbyn offer a referendum between hard brexit and remain probably wouldn't lose him voters if May sticks to her deal.

It would be hard to paint him as a remainer if he's offering a harder Brexit than the one May has to offer, and he can sit out the actual campaign itself and remain neutral.

If 'hard Brexit' can be defined and a deal on that basis is achievable with the EU, I guess that might be a runner. If it simply means 'crash out' then that will never go to a vote, and no responsible politician can afford to entertain such.

Remainers' greatest achievement over the past 2 years has been getting the expression 'crash out with No Deal' into standard usage. That in itself has probably killed off the No Deal option.

IanB2 said:

Foxy said:

Scott_P said:

Roger said:

Despite the dip still extaordinary approval ratings considering what the man is like. What kind of people are these 'White Evangelicals' who appear to love him? Does their religion include not being judgemental? There can be no explanation other than that they are seeing a different version of Trump to the one we're seeing.

A curious feature of his support is that it inversely proportional to church attendance.

White evangelicals who go to church, don't vote for him much. White evangelicals who don't go to church vote for him a lot...

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-ex-churchgoers-flocked-to-trump/

That is one of the most interesting articles that I have read on Trump and his appeal.

"The more people worshipping and studying with neighbors with whom they shared a higher cause, the less belief that the American Dream was dead."

America has long been more religious than Europe, but I do think that there are parallels in the WWC Brexit vote in the UK. Here religion was less a factor than the decline of social institutions such as workplaces and trade unions. Atomised communities have much less commitment to the status quo. There is a Trump like desire in Brexit to create something to believe in.

Do we infer from this that America is finally starting to become less religious? I have seen this reported in relation to the upcoming generation, so I guess it might simply be a matter of time, but I haven't seen anything about falling observance amongst the boomer and X generations?

You may find this article from 2015 of interest:

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/