Skip to content

UK punters getting nervous about Biden’s prospects and the money is going on Trump – politicalbettin

SystemSystem Posts: 12,618
edited November 2020 in General
imageUK punters getting nervous about Biden’s prospects and the money is going on Trump – politicalbetting.com

Chart from Betdata.io of the Betfair exchange market.

Read the full story here

«134567…10

Comments

  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    1st?
  • DAlexanderDAlexander Posts: 815
    Second like Biden
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,467
    edited November 2020
    If Trump loses and Biden only wins narrowly I would certainly expect Trump to run again in 2024.

    No other Republican would likely be able to beat him for the nomination and Harris would be an easier opponent for him than Biden and he could paint her as radical left in a way he could not do for the former Vice President, assuming Biden will be too old to run again.

    It would take a Biden-Harris landslide of LBJ 1964 levels and Trump to face the worst GOP defeat since Goldwater for him to leave the scene even if defeated
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,458
    edited November 2020
    HYUFD said:

    If Trump loses and Biden only wins narrowly I would certainly expect Trump to run again in 2024.

    No other Republican would likely be able to beat him for the nomination and Harris would be an easier opponent for him than Biden and he could paint her as radical left in a way he could not do for the former Vice President, assuming Biden will be too old to run again.

    It would take a Biden-Harris landslide of LBJ 1964 levels and Trump to face the worst GOP defeat since Goldwater for him to leave the scene even if defeated

    Can he run his campaign from Attica?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,617
    HYUFD said:

    If Trump loses and Biden only wins narrowly I would certainly expect Trump to run again in 2024.

    No other Republican would likely be able to beat him for the nomination and Harris would be an easier opponent for him than Biden and he could paint her as radical left in a way he could not do for the former Vice President, assuming Biden will be too old to run again.

    It would take a Biden-Harris landslide of LBJ 1964 levels and Trump to face the worst GOP defeat since Goldwater for him to leave the scene even if defeated

    Would this do it? -

    https://www.270towin.com/maps/AJjQW

    Plus 12m down in the PV.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,821
    Good afternoon.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,467
    edited November 2020
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Trump loses and Biden only wins narrowly I would certainly expect Trump to run again in 2024.

    No other Republican would likely be able to beat him for the nomination and Harris would be an easier opponent for him than Biden and he could paint her as radical left in a way he could not do for the former Vice President, assuming Biden will be too old to run again.

    It would take a Biden-Harris landslide of LBJ 1964 levels and Trump to face the worst GOP defeat since Goldwater for him to leave the scene even if defeated

    Would this do it? -

    https://www.270towin.com/maps/AJjQW

    Plus 12m down in the PV.
    That would just about do it, it would still be slightly better for Trump than the 52 EC votes Goldwater got in 1964 but would be worse than the 159 EC votes Dole got in 1996 which is the worst GOP defeat currently at a presidential election since 1964
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,451
    HYUFD said:

    If Trump loses and Biden only wins narrowly I would certainly expect Trump to run again in 2024.

    No other Republican would likely be able to beat him for the nomination and Harris would be an easier opponent for him than Biden and he could paint her as radical left in a way he could not do for the former Vice President, assuming Biden will be too old to run again.

    It would take a Biden-Harris landslide of LBJ 1964 levels and Trump to face the worst GOP defeat since Goldwater for him to leave the scene even if defeated

    No - they will run Ivanka. The GOP would not run a candidate limited to a one-term presidency
  • isamisam Posts: 42,294
    https://twitter.com/mc_of_a/status/1323606575127400448?s=21

    https://twitter.com/mc_of_a/status/1323607017349619714?s=21
  • ChrisChris Posts: 12,091
    HYUFD said:

    If Trump loses and Biden only wins narrowly I would certainly expect Trump to run again in 2024.

    No other Republican would likely be able to beat him for the nomination and Harris would be an easier opponent for him than Biden and he could paint her as radical left in a way he could not do for the former Vice President, assuming Biden will be too old to run again.

    It would take a Biden-Harris landslide of LBJ 1964 levels and Trump to face the worst GOP defeat since Goldwater for him to leave the scene even if defeated

    If Trump loses expect him to be airbrushed out of Republican history almost immediately. A candidacy in 2024 would be sheer fantasy.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,464
    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Trump loses and Biden only wins narrowly I would certainly expect Trump to run again in 2024.

    No other Republican would likely be able to beat him for the nomination and Harris would be an easier opponent for him than Biden and he could paint her as radical left in a way he could not do for the former Vice President, assuming Biden will be too old to run again.

    It would take a Biden-Harris landslide of LBJ 1964 levels and Trump to face the worst GOP defeat since Goldwater for him to leave the scene even if defeated

    If Trump loses expect him to be airbrushed out of Republican history almost immediately. A candidacy in 2024 would be sheer fantasy.
    He'd be 78 years old to boot...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,467
    not_on_fire said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Trump loses and Biden only wins narrowly I would certainly expect Trump to run again in 2024.

    No other Republican would likely be able to beat him for the nomination and Harris would be an easier opponent for him than Biden and he could paint her as radical left in a way he could not do for the former Vice President, assuming Biden will be too old to run again.

    It would take a Biden-Harris landslide of LBJ 1964 levels and Trump to face the worst GOP defeat since Goldwater for him to leave the scene even if defeated

    No - they will run Ivanka. The GOP would not run a candidate limited to a one-term presidency
    You can run for 2 non consecutive terms as Cleveland did in the 19th century if you lose your first re election battle, Ivanka is too RINO for the GOP base anyway unlike her father
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,451
    HYUFD said:

    not_on_fire said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Trump loses and Biden only wins narrowly I would certainly expect Trump to run again in 2024.

    No other Republican would likely be able to beat him for the nomination and Harris would be an easier opponent for him than Biden and he could paint her as radical left in a way he could not do for the former Vice President, assuming Biden will be too old to run again.

    It would take a Biden-Harris landslide of LBJ 1964 levels and Trump to face the worst GOP defeat since Goldwater for him to leave the scene even if defeated

    No - they will run Ivanka. The GOP would not run a candidate limited to a one-term presidency
    You can run for 2 non consecutive terms as Cleveland did in the 19th century if you lose your first re election battle, Ivanka is too RINO for the GOP base anyway unlike her father
    Yeah but this isn't the 19th century. Trump will endorse one of kids in an attempt to go for a George W Bush style name boost. You're right that it may not be Ivanka.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,467
    edited November 2020
    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Trump loses and Biden only wins narrowly I would certainly expect Trump to run again in 2024.

    No other Republican would likely be able to beat him for the nomination and Harris would be an easier opponent for him than Biden and he could paint her as radical left in a way he could not do for the former Vice President, assuming Biden will be too old to run again.

    It would take a Biden-Harris landslide of LBJ 1964 levels and Trump to face the worst GOP defeat since Goldwater for him to leave the scene even if defeated

    If Trump loses expect him to be airbrushed out of Republican history almost immediately. A candidacy in 2024 would be sheer fantasy.
    If he only loses narrowly this year in 2024 the GOP base which makes up their primary vote and chooses the GOP nominee will still be behind him if he runs again, they will only abandon him if he is trounced as it took a Labour trouncing and their worst defeat since 1935 last year for the Labour membership to shift from Corbyn to Starmer this year
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,685
    Maybe Trump told his aides he'd be "on the run" in 2024?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Does Han Dodges read PB.com?

    https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/1323613856111960069?s=21

    Mr Navabi pointed this out on the previous thread (though not the pattern Mr Dodges mentions).
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,043
    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Trump loses and Biden only wins narrowly I would certainly expect Trump to run again in 2024.

    No other Republican would likely be able to beat him for the nomination and Harris would be an easier opponent for him than Biden and he could paint her as radical left in a way he could not do for the former Vice President, assuming Biden will be too old to run again.

    It would take a Biden-Harris landslide of LBJ 1964 levels and Trump to face the worst GOP defeat since Goldwater for him to leave the scene even if defeated

    If Trump loses expect him to be airbrushed out of Republican history almost immediately. A candidacy in 2024 would be sheer fantasy.
    Id expect Trump TV to be the dominant influence of the Republican party in 2024. Kingmaker and influencer rather than candidate.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,186
    https://twitter.com/GarrettHaake/status/1323619026698993665
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    Told ya so.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,186
    CarlottaVance said:

    Does Han Dodges read PB.com?

    https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/1323613856111960069?s=21

    Mr Navabi pointed this out on the previous thread (though not the pattern Mr Dodges mentions).

    Occasionally, plus he does follow me on Twitter.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,711
    Late to the new thread like the absolute twats who turn up to the polling station on election day 1 minute after it closes and then have a meltdown about how unfair it all is.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    CarlottaVance said:

    Does Han Dodges read PB.com?

    https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status/1323613856111960069?s=21

    Mr Navabi pointed this out on the previous thread (though not the pattern Mr Dodges mentions).

    Registrations are not the be all and end all. Some states are 'high crossover' and there are many independents. Its a secret ballot FFS.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,186
    From the people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us'?

    https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1323617890948571140
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    I’m always amazed by the amount of live data you can get on US elections vs our own (yeah I have a crap memory). We must look really weird to them.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,711
    edited November 2020
    Trump lives for his rallies...all the other stuff, like actually running the free world, Boooooring, but the opportunity to freestyle for an hour to 50,000 adoring fans is what he loves.

    If he going to turn into similar to one of those aging rock bands, who weren't that good to start with, but had a couple of big hits and still at 70 they just have to continue to tour to have their egos stroked.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 12,091
    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Trump loses and Biden only wins narrowly I would certainly expect Trump to run again in 2024.

    No other Republican would likely be able to beat him for the nomination and Harris would be an easier opponent for him than Biden and he could paint her as radical left in a way he could not do for the former Vice President, assuming Biden will be too old to run again.

    It would take a Biden-Harris landslide of LBJ 1964 levels and Trump to face the worst GOP defeat since Goldwater for him to leave the scene even if defeated

    If Trump loses expect him to be airbrushed out of Republican history almost immediately. A candidacy in 2024 would be sheer fantasy.
    If he only loses narrowly this year in 2024 the GOP base which makes up their primary vote and chooses the GOP nominee will still be behind him if he runs again, they will only abandon him if he is trounced as it took a Labour trouncing and their worst defeat since 1935 last year for the Labour membership to shift from Corbyn to Starmer this year
    How long will it be this time before you're pretending you never said any of this stuff?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Trump lives for his rallies...all the other stuff, like actually running the free world, Boooooring, but the opportunity to freestyle for an hour to 50,000 adoring fans is what he loves.

    If he going to turn into similar to one of those aging rock bands, who weren't that good to start with, but had a couple of big hits and still at 70 they just have to continue to tour to have their egos stroked.

    He even performed The Snake a couple of days ago, for old time's sake.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Trump lives for his rallies...all the other stuff, like actually running the free world, Boooooring, but the opportunity to freestyle for an hour to 50,000 adoring fans is what he loves.

    If he going to turn into similar to one of those aging rock bands, who weren't that good to start with, but had a couple of big hits and still at 70 they just have to continue to tour to have their egos stroked.

    I think we can safely assume that no future President will send him on a delicate diplomatic mission...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,467
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Trump lives for his rallies...all the other stuff, like actually running the free world, Boooooring, but the opportunity to freestyle for an hour to 50,000 adoring fans is what he loves.

    If he going to turn into similar to one of those aging rock bands, who weren't that good to start with, but had a couple of big hits and still at 70 they just have to continue to tour to have their egos stroked.

    Yes, Trump is like Boris in that respect, governing is an awful bore but they love campaigning.

    May and Hillary were the opposite, they loved the technical aspects of government and policy, they were hopeless campaigners
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    Time_to_Leave said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Trump lives for his rallies...all the other stuff, like actually running the free world, Boooooring, but the opportunity to freestyle for an hour to 50,000 adoring fans is what he loves.

    If he going to turn into similar to one of those aging rock bands, who weren't that good to start with, but had a couple of big hits and still at 70 they just have to continue to tour to have their egos stroked.

    I think we can safely assume that no future President will send him on a delicate diplomatic mission...
    Ambassador to North Korea?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,786
    https://twitter.com/jonallendc/status/1323617194836713472?s=20
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,186
    https://twitter.com/Doylech/status/1323612595107102720
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,711
    If he does lose (which I expect), Trump TV is going to be yuuuuuuge...i mean look at the numbers the second rate surrogates like Hannity do, when his fans can have the real deal on 5 nights a week.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    From the people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us'?

    https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1323617890948571140

    Being slightly sceptical here but let's say you wanted to discredit Trump - surely this is the sort of thing you would do?
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/Doylech/status/1323612595107102720

    Assert our claim to our colonies.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,795
    Trump seems to be drifting back out a bit now.

    He's back out to 2.78 on Betfair Exchange.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,186
    MrEd said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    From the people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us'?

    https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1323617890948571140

    Being slightly sceptical here but let's say you wanted to discredit Trump - surely this is the sort of thing you would do?
    Always defending the bigots, why am I not surprised.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,786
    MrEd said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    From the people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us'?

    https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1323617890948571140

    Being slightly sceptical here but let's say you wanted to discredit Trump - surely this is the sort of thing you would do?
    :D Yeah yeah, false flag, bla bla
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited November 2020
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/Doylech/status/1323612595107102720

    What happened in 2000?

    I don't think Biden will be angered by leaders being diplomatic, I don't think he's remotely as insecure as Trump is.
  • DAlexanderDAlexander Posts: 815
    MrEd said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    From the people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us'?

    https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1323617890948571140

    Being slightly sceptical here but let's say you wanted to discredit Trump - surely this is the sort of thing you would do?
    There are unconfirmed reports of Jussie Smollett being seen in the area with a MAGA hat on and a can of red paint.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,221
    fpt
    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8906871/Shots-fired-near-synagogue-Vienna-police-say-major-operation-underway.html

    FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.

    Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
    You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?

    You my friend may want to think that through.
    I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.

    I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
    Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

    If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
    Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?

    How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?

    Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?

    If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
    Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.

    People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.

    If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?

    You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
    The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
    Forever?

    And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
    Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
    Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
    He was released early because of his age.

    My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
    What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,695
    I will be suitably entertained whatever happens tonight. If Biden hands Trump his ass on a platter great. If Trump pulls off a shock GONSDAP win then lol funny.

    Never mind Trump saying "build that wall". If he wins again I can see Canada wanting to close the border to Gilead.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,192
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/Doylech/status/1323612595107102720

    You congratulate the winner. The loser might be annoyed with you for 3 months but in three months time he will likely be in an orange jumpsuit with other things to worry about.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    Gallowgate said:

    MrEd said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    From the people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us'?

    https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1323617890948571140

    Being slightly sceptical here but let's say you wanted to discredit Trump - surely this is the sort of thing you would do?
    :D Yeah yeah, false flag, bla bla
    Easy to tell if it’s Trump supporters. Is the spelling correct?
  • DAlexanderDAlexander Posts: 815
    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8906871/Shots-fired-near-synagogue-Vienna-police-say-major-operation-underway.html

    FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.

    Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
    You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?

    You my friend may want to think that through.
    I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.

    I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
    Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

    If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
    Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?

    How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?

    Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?

    If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
    Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.

    People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.

    If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?

    You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
    The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
    Forever?

    And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
    Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
    Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
    He was released early because of his age.

    My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
    What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
    I'll answer on the previous thread to avoid cluttering up this one.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,711
    It isn't a hard decision. If Biden wins bigly, it also means he wins power in house and senate. You have little to worry about from Trump having a tantrum, as he has little power to effect the future.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    edited November 2020
    MrEd said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    From the people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us'?

    https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1323617890948571140

    Being slightly sceptical here but let's say you wanted to discredit Trump - surely this is the sort of thing you would do?
    Not least because if you had the misfortune to come across right-wing antisemites online you'd realise they hate Trump with a passion. The reasons should be pretty obvious.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MrEd said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    From the people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us'?

    https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1323617890948571140

    Being slightly sceptical here but let's say you wanted to discredit Trump - surely this is the sort of thing you would do?
    Always defending the bigots, why am I not surprised.
    I'd watch your words @TSE. I'm not defending any bigots. What I am questioning is "cui bono" this is.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,711
    edited November 2020
    The worst result is a really slim win for either side. Months of legal battles and the nutters on both sides will be out on the streets demanding justice / protecting democracy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,467
    MrEd said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    From the people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us'?

    https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1323617890948571140

    Being slightly sceptical here but let's say you wanted to discredit Trump - surely this is the sort of thing you would do?
    More positive news from Wisconsin

    https://twitter.com/NYDailyNews/status/1323329890213658627?s=20
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,360
    RochdalePioneers said:

    I will be suitably entertained whatever happens tonight. If Biden hands Trump his ass on a platter great. If Trump pulls off a shock GONSDAP win then lol funny.

    Never mind Trump saying "build that wall". If he wins again I can see Canada wanting to close the border to Gilead.

    It's been closed for nearly 8 months already.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,795
    MrEd said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    From the people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us'?

    https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1323617890948571140

    Being slightly sceptical here but let's say you wanted to discredit Trump - surely this is the sort of thing you would do?
    Adding false-flagism bigoted conspiracy theories to your already burgeoning portfolio of luxuriating in voter suppression.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    The worst result is a really slim win for either side. Months of legal battles and the nutters on both sides will be out on the streets demanding justice / protecting democracy.

    It is going to be a clear victory for Joe, bye Don.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,795
    RochdalePioneers said:

    I will be suitably entertained whatever happens tonight. If Biden hands Trump his ass on a platter great. If Trump pulls off a shock GONSDAP win then lol funny.

    Never mind Trump saying "build that wall". If he wins again I can see Canada wanting to close the border to Gilead.


    You are a very weird person.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,294
    Time_to_Leave said:

    I’m always amazed by the amount of live data you can get on US elections vs our own (yeah I have a crap memory). We must look really weird to them.

    IIRC the fact that we have our General Election results ready so soon, without lawyers, and have the next occupant in No. 10 before you can snap your fingers seems very strange to them.

    Remember, whatever happens.... we have 2 more months of President Trump. FFS.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,180
    FPT:
    dixiedean said:

    » show previous quotes
    True. But a couple of caveats. 3 of the Tory holds are by fewer than 200 votes off that poll. Aberconwy, Wrexham and Vale of Glamorgan. Make it 8 and it is a bit more than reverting to 2017.
    And, of course, apart from Ynys Mon, none of these constituencies will exist come 2024 anyways.

    Make it 8 and you are going beyond what the poll suggests. Which negates the exercise completely to something akin to a wishlist. I agree on the last point and overall the boundary changes actually make the Labour task a bit harder most likely - both in Wales and in the UK.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,711
    edited November 2020
    Malmesbury said:

    Time_to_Leave said:

    I’m always amazed by the amount of live data you can get on US elections vs our own (yeah I have a crap memory). We must look really weird to them.

    IIRC the fact that we have our General Election results ready so soon, without lawyers, and have the next occupant in No. 10 before you can snap your fingers seems very strange to them.

    Remember, whatever happens.... we have 2 more months of President Trump. FFS.
    Well othet than when Gordon Brown enacted a sit in.....but yes thst really was the exception.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    TOPPING said:

    DAlexander said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8906871/Shots-fired-near-synagogue-Vienna-police-say-major-operation-underway.html

    FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.

    Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
    You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?

    You my friend may want to think that through.
    I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.

    I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
    Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

    If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
    Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?

    How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?

    Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?

    If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
    Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.

    People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.

    If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?

    You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
    The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
    Forever?

    And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
    Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
    Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
    He was released early because of his age.

    My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
    What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
    Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.

    Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
    Oh! We're using peoples' names to determine whether they are English. Are you being serious?
    Wow that is one of the most jaw droppingly racist things I've ever read on this site. 😲
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,695
    Beibheirli_C said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/Doylech/status/1323612595107102720

    You congratulate the winner. The loser might be annoyed with you for 3 months but in three months time he will likely be in an orange jumpsuit with other things to worry about.
    Trump will not concede regardless of how big the Biden win is. He will declare the election stolen, the coverage of crooked Joe to be fake news and get on with his plan to nuke Covid whilst he still has control of the launch codes.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,261
    edited November 2020
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    This is remarkable (or maybe y'all knew about it already) - you can look at Florida voting patterns in real time. This for example is Pinellas country, which in 2016 split pretty much evenly Trump/Clinton. You can see the registered Dem early advantage, but more GOP-registered voting today:

    https://tqv.vrswebapps.com/?state=FL&county=pin

    Last time, Pinellas County went 50.6% Trump, 49.4% Clinton.
    Assuming:
    People vote according to their registrations
    The unaffliated split 50/50 Trump/Biden
    The turnout is 77% (last time was 77%)
    then the result in this county would be 50.8% Trump, 49.2% Biden (basically same as last time)

    It is very sensitive to turnout and unaffiliated split.
    Turnout of 80% gives 51.4% Trump 48.6% Biden (as voters on the day favour Trump)
    Unaffliated split 40/60 Trump/Biden and 80% turnout gives 49.0% Trump, 51.0% Biden.

    My feel on this small amount of data on just one county in Florida is that it favours Trump holding Florida.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,805
    Gallowgate said:

    https://twitter.com/jonallendc/status/1323617194836713472?s=20

    Can I just remind everyne that it is not even 9am on the East Coast yet?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,786
    edited November 2020
    Alternatively in Broward County Florida (pro Dem), turnout has surpassed 2016 and the enormous Dem leading is holding.

    https://tqv.vrswebapps.com/?state=FL&county=bro
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Barnesian said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    This is remarkable (or maybe y'all knew about it already) - you can look at Florida voting patterns in real time. This for example is Pinellas country, which in 2016 split pretty much evenly Trump/Clinton. You can see the registered Dem early advantage, but more GOP-registered voting today:

    https://tqv.vrswebapps.com/?state=FL&county=pin

    Last time, Pinellas County went 50.6% Trump, 49.4% Clinton.
    Assuming:
    People vote according to their registrations
    The unaffliated split 50/50 Trump/Biden
    The turnout is 77% (last time was 77%)
    then the result in this county would be 50.8% Trump, 49.2% Biden (basically same as last time)

    It is very sensitive to turnout and unaffiliated split.
    Turnout of 80% gives 51.4% Trump 48.6% Biden (as voters on the day favour Trump)
    Unaffliated split 40/60 Trump/Biden and 80% turnout gives 49.0% Trump, 51.0% Biden.

    My feel on this small amount of data on just one county in Florida is that it favours Trump holding Florida.
    FYI Sumter is at 81% turnout and will likely go higher. Not so many in-person votes yet but Republicans leading Democrats by registration by nearly 5 to 1
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Do we have anything like Andy_JS's spreadsheet for this election for keeping an eye on results?
  • isamisam Posts: 42,294
    edited November 2020
    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8906871/Shots-fired-near-synagogue-Vienna-police-say-major-operation-underway.html

    FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.

    Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
    You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?

    You my friend may want to think that through.
    I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.

    I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
    Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

    If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
    Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?

    How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?

    Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?

    If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
    Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.

    People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.

    If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?

    You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
    The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
    Forever?

    And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
    Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
    Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
    He was released early because of his age.

    My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
    What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
    Denmark are making Islamic terrorists stateless
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,221
    Philip_Thompson said:

    TOPPING said:

    DAlexander said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8906871/Shots-fired-near-synagogue-Vienna-police-say-major-operation-underway.html

    FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.

    Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
    You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?

    You my friend may want to think that through.
    I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.

    I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
    Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

    If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
    Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?

    How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?

    Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?

    If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
    Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.

    People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.

    If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?

    You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
    The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
    Forever?

    And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
    Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
    Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
    He was released early because of his age.

    My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
    What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
    Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.

    Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
    Oh! We're using peoples' names to determine whether they are English. Are you being serious?
    Wow that is one of the most jaw droppingly racist things I've ever read on this site. 😲
    This is what he/she/it then said:

    "He has Pakistani parents and ethnically Pakistanis are allowed to relocate back there."
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,221
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8906871/Shots-fired-near-synagogue-Vienna-police-say-major-operation-underway.html

    FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.

    Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
    You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?

    You my friend may want to think that through.
    I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.

    I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
    Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

    If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
    Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?

    How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?

    Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?

    If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
    Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.

    People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.

    If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?

    You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
    The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
    Forever?

    And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
    Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
    Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
    He was released early because of his age.

    My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
    What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
    Denmark are making Islamic terrorists stateless
    What about child murderers?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,805
    DAlexander said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8906871/Shots-fired-near-synagogue-Vienna-police-say-major-operation-underway.html

    FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.

    Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
    You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?

    You my friend may want to think that through.
    I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.

    I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
    Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

    If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
    Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?

    How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?

    Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?

    If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
    Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.

    People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.

    If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?

    You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
    The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
    Forever?

    And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
    Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
    Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
    He was released early because of his age.

    My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
    What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
    Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.

    Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
    That's got to be worth a sin-bin surely?

  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,805
    Gallowgate said:

    Alternatively in Broward County Florida (pro Dem), turnout has surpassed 2016 and the enormous Dem leading is holding.

    https://tqv.vrswebapps.com/?state=FL&county=bro

    Again - it's barely 9am!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,186
    edited November 2020
    Topping said:

    Oh! We're using peoples' names to determine whether they are English. Are you being serious?

    It'll make it easier to deport Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson to New York for his crimes of fecking up Covid-19 and delivering a No Deal Brexit.
  • GaussianGaussian Posts: 834
    TOPPING said:

    DAlexander said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8906871/Shots-fired-near-synagogue-Vienna-police-say-major-operation-underway.html

    FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.

    Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
    You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?

    You my friend may want to think that through.
    I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.

    I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
    Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

    If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
    Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?

    How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?

    Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?

    If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
    Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.

    People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.

    If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?

    You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
    The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
    Forever?

    And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
    Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
    Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
    He was released early because of his age.

    My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
    What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
    Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.

    Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
    Oh! We're using peoples' names to determine whether they are English. Are you being serious?
    Alexander is a popular name in Russia ...
  • DAlexanderDAlexander Posts: 815
    TOPPING said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    TOPPING said:

    DAlexander said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8906871/Shots-fired-near-synagogue-Vienna-police-say-major-operation-underway.html

    FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.

    Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
    You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?

    You my friend may want to think that through.
    I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.

    I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
    Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

    If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
    Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?

    How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?

    Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?

    If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
    Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.

    People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.

    If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?

    You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
    The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
    Forever?

    And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
    Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
    Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
    He was released early because of his age.

    My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
    What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
    Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.

    Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
    Oh! We're using peoples' names to determine whether they are English. Are you being serious?
    Wow that is one of the most jaw droppingly racist things I've ever read on this site. 😲
    This is what he/she/it then said:

    "He has Pakistani parents and ethnically Pakistanis are allowed to relocate back there."
    Ah I see you are selectively quoting parts of our discussion on here rather than the other thread where we agreed to discuss it to try to make me look bad.

    I said convicted Islamic terrorists should be deported back after their sentence is completed. Clever Topping here is trying to make it sound like I meant all foreigners. What a lovely chap he is.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,464
    Philip_Thompson said:

    TOPPING said:

    DAlexander said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8906871/Shots-fired-near-synagogue-Vienna-police-say-major-operation-underway.html

    FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.

    Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
    You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?

    You my friend may want to think that through.
    I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.

    I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
    Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

    If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
    Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?

    How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?

    Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?

    If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
    Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.

    People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.

    If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?

    You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
    The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
    Forever?

    And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
    Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
    Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
    He was released early because of his age.

    My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
    What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
    Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.

    Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
    Oh! We're using peoples' names to determine whether they are English. Are you being serious?
    Wow that is one of the most jaw droppingly racist things I've ever read on this site. 😲
    DAlexander? Hmmmm... isn't Alexander a Greek name?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,496
    https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1323625981706301440
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,192
    RochdalePioneers said:

    Beibheirli_C said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/Doylech/status/1323612595107102720

    You congratulate the winner. The loser might be annoyed with you for 3 months but in three months time he will likely be in an orange jumpsuit with other things to worry about.
    Trump will not concede regardless of how big the Biden win is. He will declare the election stolen, the coverage of crooked Joe to be fake news and get on with his plan to nuke Covid whilst he still has control of the launch codes.
    Then the Secret Service and other enforcement branches will simply march him out of the Whitehouse. Their oath is to defend the Constitution not to serve the President.

    The thought of four USSS personnel taking a limb each and carrying the screaming toddler out of the Whitehouse ..... if videoed it be would be viral in minutes :D:D
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Anabobazina said:

    MrEd said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    From the people who chanted 'Jews will not replace us'?

    https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1323617890948571140

    Being slightly sceptical here but let's say you wanted to discredit Trump - surely this is the sort of thing you would do?
    Adding false-flagism bigoted conspiracy theories to your already burgeoning portfolio of luxuriating in voter suppression.
    As I said to @TSE, cui bono is this attack? It may very well be Trump supporters but it is stupid if it is given the importance of Florida to the election and the wide publicity the attack has gotten.

    By the way, given you support Joe "You Ain't Black" Biden, can I assume you support the idea of a group of people being owned by a political party based on the colour of their skin?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,821
    edited November 2020
    A tie with Betfair Sports has been reduced from 33/1 a couple of days ago to 26/1.

    https://www.betfair.com/sport/politics/2020-us-presidential-election/10393583/electoral-college-vote-tie-special/924.237362868

    Is there a market for this on Betfair Exchange? I can't find one.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,221
    DAlexander said:

    TOPPING said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    TOPPING said:

    DAlexander said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8906871/Shots-fired-near-synagogue-Vienna-police-say-major-operation-underway.html

    FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.

    Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
    You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?

    You my friend may want to think that through.
    I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.

    I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
    Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

    If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
    Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?

    How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?

    Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?

    If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
    Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.

    People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.

    If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?

    You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
    The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
    Forever?

    And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
    Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
    Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
    He was released early because of his age.

    My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
    What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
    Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.

    Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
    Oh! We're using peoples' names to determine whether they are English. Are you being serious?
    Wow that is one of the most jaw droppingly racist things I've ever read on this site. 😲
    This is what he/she/it then said:

    "He has Pakistani parents and ethnically Pakistanis are allowed to relocate back there."
    Ah I see you are selectively quoting parts of our discussion on here rather than the other thread where we agreed to discuss it to try to make me look bad.

    I said convicted Islamic terrorists should be deported back after their sentence is completed. Clever Topping here is trying to make it sound like I meant all foreigners. What a lovely chap he is.
    Mate I'm just quoting what you wrote.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,795
    Barnesian said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    This is remarkable (or maybe y'all knew about it already) - you can look at Florida voting patterns in real time. This for example is Pinellas country, which in 2016 split pretty much evenly Trump/Clinton. You can see the registered Dem early advantage, but more GOP-registered voting today:

    https://tqv.vrswebapps.com/?state=FL&county=pin

    Last time, Pinellas County went 50.6% Trump, 49.4% Clinton.
    Assuming:
    People vote according to their registrations
    The unaffliated split 50/50 Trump/Biden
    The turnout is 77% (last time was 77%)
    then the result in this county would be 50.8% Trump, 49.2% Biden (basically same as last time)

    It is very sensitive to turnout and unaffiliated split.
    Turnout of 80% gives 51.4% Trump 48.6% Biden (as voters on the day favour Trump)
    Unaffliated split 40/60 Trump/Biden and 80% turnout gives 49.0% Trump, 51.0% Biden.

    My feel on this small amount of data on just one county in Florida is that it favours Trump holding Florida.
    You can find other counties by replacing the final three letters of the URL
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,786
    DAlexander said:

    TOPPING said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    TOPPING said:

    DAlexander said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8906871/Shots-fired-near-synagogue-Vienna-police-say-major-operation-underway.html

    FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.

    Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
    You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?

    You my friend may want to think that through.
    I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.

    I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
    Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

    If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
    Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?

    How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?

    Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?

    If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
    Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.

    People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.

    If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?

    You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
    The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
    Forever?

    And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
    Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
    Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
    He was released early because of his age.

    My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
    What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
    Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.

    Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
    Oh! We're using peoples' names to determine whether they are English. Are you being serious?
    Wow that is one of the most jaw droppingly racist things I've ever read on this site. 😲
    This is what he/she/it then said:

    "He has Pakistani parents and ethnically Pakistanis are allowed to relocate back there."
    Ah I see you are selectively quoting parts of our discussion on here rather than the other thread where we agreed to discuss it to try to make me look bad.

    I said convicted Islamic terrorists should be deported back after their sentence is completed. Clever Topping here is trying to make it sound like I meant all foreigners. What a lovely chap he is.
    Deported back where?!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Gaussian said:

    CarlottaVance said:


    https://twitter.com/Alan_Cochrane/status/1323582614301822976?s=20

    What is Dominic Cummings' opinion on Scottish Independence? If he wanted to push people towards it, that's a great way to go about it.
    The PM's position is there will be no indyref2 allowed while he is PM, in any case they are still getting their furlough although in my view if Sturgeon or Drakeford do not impose a lockdown at the same time as the rest of the UK they should raise Scottish or Welsh taxes to pay for it
    Furlough is a reserved matter. Why should Scottish or Welsh taxes go to subsidise an Enbglish lockdown when the reverse is not permitted?
    Why should English taxpayers pay for Scottish and Welsh furlough when England is not in lockdown?
    Because the money is UK money. Not English. You're confusing the UK and England yet again.

    Quite. If parts of the UK are not willing to support other parts in their time of need what's the point of it? I have no concern there.
    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    HYUFD said:

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1323534663453913093?s=20

    Is the irony of Trump and his supporters dancing along to the Village People lost on the Trumpsters?
    Why is it ironic?
    Because LGBT is clearly on the opposite side of the "culture war", and the Village People are camp AF.
    There's no evidence Trump is anti-gay and they were just playing a song. I don't see the problem.

    The way the left thinks they have a monopoly on anything possibly gay is just bizarre.
    Who said anything about Trump being anti-gay? Only you.
    It's implied by saying it is ironic that his supporters are dancing along to the village people.

    It's not complicated.
    It's certainly what I thought was implied.

  • DAlexanderDAlexander Posts: 815
    DougSeal said:

    DAlexander said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8906871/Shots-fired-near-synagogue-Vienna-police-say-major-operation-underway.html

    FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.

    Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
    You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?

    You my friend may want to think that through.
    I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.

    I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
    Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

    If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
    Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?

    How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?

    Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?

    If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
    Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.

    People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.

    If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?

    You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
    The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
    Forever?

    And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
    Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
    Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
    He was released early because of his age.

    My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
    What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
    Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.

    Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
    That's got to be worth a sin-bin surely?

    Mohammad Sidique Khan is one of the 7/7 bombers. I thought I'd add that context before Topping gets me banned.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    edited November 2020
    Beibheirli_C said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    Beibheirli_C said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/Doylech/status/1323612595107102720

    You congratulate the winner. The loser might be annoyed with you for 3 months but in three months time he will likely be in an orange jumpsuit with other things to worry about.
    Trump will not concede regardless of how big the Biden win is. He will declare the election stolen, the coverage of crooked Joe to be fake news and get on with his plan to nuke Covid whilst he still has control of the launch codes.
    Then the Secret Service and other enforcement branches will simply march him out of the Whitehouse. Their oath is to defend the Constitution not to serve the President.

    The thought of four USSS personnel taking a limb each and carrying the screaming toddler out of the Whitehouse ..... if videoed it be would be viral in minutes :D:D
    Understatement. Itd breach the speed of light.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,786
    https://twitter.com/PeterSchorschFL/status/1323618317882544131?s=20

    This is interesting. They still predict Biden will win Pinellas, and have factored in 2.5:1 GOP election day advantage.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,695
    Anabobazina said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    I will be suitably entertained whatever happens tonight. If Biden hands Trump his ass on a platter great. If Trump pulls off a shock GONSDAP win then lol funny.

    Never mind Trump saying "build that wall". If he wins again I can see Canada wanting to close the border to Gilead.


    You are a very weird person.
    That much is certain. However:
    "GONSDAP" refers to the near fascism of the GOP in its pursuit of stopping people voting and its enjoyment of heavily armed private militia
    "Gilead" refers to what the Pence wing of American "Christians" want America to become.

    Canada closes the border to Gilead in the book as well.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,038
    HYUFD said:

    If Trump loses and Biden only wins narrowly I would certainly expect Trump to run again in 2024.

    No other Republican would likely be able to beat him for the nomination and Harris would be an easier opponent for him than Biden and he could paint her as radical left in a way he could not do for the former Vice President, assuming Biden will be too old to run again.

    It would take a Biden-Harris landslide of LBJ 1964 levels and Trump to face the worst GOP defeat since Goldwater for him to leave the scene even if defeated

    There's also prison, or ill health, for starters.
    I think he's very much an outside bet for 2024.
  • DAlexanderDAlexander Posts: 815
    isam said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8906871/Shots-fired-near-synagogue-Vienna-police-say-major-operation-underway.html

    FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.

    Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
    You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?

    You my friend may want to think that through.
    I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.

    I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
    Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

    If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
    Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?

    How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?

    Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?

    If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
    Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.

    People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.

    If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?

    You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
    The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
    Forever?

    And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
    Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
    Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
    He was released early because of his age.

    My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
    What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
    Denmark are making Islamic terrorists stateless
    I'm glad you're here.

    Supporting this sensible move by Denmark means you are a racist bigot who needs to be driven off the website apparently.

    Anyway I'm off for a bit before this discussion ruins this thread as well.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,786
    DAlexander said:

    DougSeal said:

    DAlexander said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8906871/Shots-fired-near-synagogue-Vienna-police-say-major-operation-underway.html

    FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.

    Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
    You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?

    You my friend may want to think that through.
    I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.

    I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
    Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

    If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
    Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?

    How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?

    Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?

    If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
    Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.

    People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.

    If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?

    You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
    The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
    Forever?

    And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
    Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
    Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
    He was released early because of his age.

    My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
    What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
    Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.

    Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
    That's got to be worth a sin-bin surely?

    Mohammad Sidique Khan is one of the 7/7 bombers. I thought I'd add that context before Topping gets me banned.
    Yes and he was born in Leeds.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    Honestly itd be hilarious if Biden wins, not even by much, and Trump shocked everyone by reacting gracefully.

    Wont happen, his schtick is no act, as seems to have shocked many who worked for him, but it would be amusing to see his supporters' reaction to gracefully defeat

    Still, I'm a Biden better, as someone coined it, so no chickens counted.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,038
    not_on_fire said:

    HYUFD said:

    not_on_fire said:

    HYUFD said:

    If Trump loses and Biden only wins narrowly I would certainly expect Trump to run again in 2024.

    No other Republican would likely be able to beat him for the nomination and Harris would be an easier opponent for him than Biden and he could paint her as radical left in a way he could not do for the former Vice President, assuming Biden will be too old to run again.

    It would take a Biden-Harris landslide of LBJ 1964 levels and Trump to face the worst GOP defeat since Goldwater for him to leave the scene even if defeated

    No - they will run Ivanka. The GOP would not run a candidate limited to a one-term presidency
    You can run for 2 non consecutive terms as Cleveland did in the 19th century if you lose your first re election battle, Ivanka is too RINO for the GOP base anyway unlike her father
    Yeah but this isn't the 19th century. Trump will endorse one of kids in an attempt to go for a George W Bush style name boost. You're right that it may not be Ivanka.
    That only leaves the coke head or the idiot. Not much of a prospect.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,186
    Out of curiosity @DAlexander where would you deport Thomas Mair to?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,695
    Beibheirli_C said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    Beibheirli_C said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/Doylech/status/1323612595107102720

    You congratulate the winner. The loser might be annoyed with you for 3 months but in three months time he will likely be in an orange jumpsuit with other things to worry about.
    Trump will not concede regardless of how big the Biden win is. He will declare the election stolen, the coverage of crooked Joe to be fake news and get on with his plan to nuke Covid whilst he still has control of the launch codes.
    Then the Secret Service and other enforcement branches will simply march him out of the Whitehouse. Their oath is to defend the Constitution not to serve the President.

    The thought of four USSS personnel taking a limb each and carrying the screaming toddler out of the Whitehouse ..... if videoed it be would be viral in minutes :D:D
    I'm talking about the months between election day and inauguration day. He will legally and constitutionally be president which leaves him free to do what he wants.
  • DAlexanderDAlexander Posts: 815
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    DAlexander said:

    DougSeal said:

    DAlexander said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8906871/Shots-fired-near-synagogue-Vienna-police-say-major-operation-underway.html

    FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.

    Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
    You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?

    You my friend may want to think that through.
    I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.

    I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
    Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

    If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
    Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?

    How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?

    Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?

    If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
    Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.

    People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.

    If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?

    You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
    The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
    Forever?

    And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
    Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
    Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
    He was released early because of his age.

    My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
    What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
    Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.

    Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
    That's got to be worth a sin-bin surely?

    Mohammad Sidique Khan is one of the 7/7 bombers. I thought I'd add that context before Topping gets me banned.
    Who was British by birth.

    Are you going for blood and soil nationlism on us?

    Asking for a friend whose grandparents were born overseas.
    Definitely not.

    Your friend will be fine as long as he doesn't commit any terrorist acts don't worry.
  • lockhimuplockhimup Posts: 63
    Gallowgate said:

    https://twitter.com/PeterSchorschFL/status/1323618317882544131?s=20

    This is interesting. They still predict Biden will win Pinellas, and have factored in 2.5:1 GOP election day advantage.

    For the last hour its been remarkably consistent - 1000 rep, 500 dem, 500 npa every 10 mins
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Survey USA poll
    http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=bb4f5a47-75fb-4f45-a667-c06a9b5d3203
    Superb covid questions

    If you know someone who died of Covid that makes you 62/36 a Biden supporter.

    But if you have had Covid yourself you are 50/47 a Trump supporter.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    TOPPING said:

    DAlexander said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8906871/Shots-fired-near-synagogue-Vienna-police-say-major-operation-underway.html

    FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.

    Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
    You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?

    You my friend may want to think that through.
    I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.

    I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
    Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

    If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
    Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?

    How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?

    Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?

    If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
    Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.

    People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.

    If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?

    You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
    The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
    Forever?

    And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
    Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
    Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
    He was released early because of his age.

    My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
    What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
    Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.

    Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
    Oh! We're using peoples' names to determine whether they are English. Are you being serious?
    Shit, my name Irish, I don't think that passes muster either.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    edited November 2020
    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    Gallowgate said:

    DAlexander said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8906871/Shots-fired-near-synagogue-Vienna-police-say-major-operation-underway.html

    FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.

    Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
    You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?

    You my friend may want to think that through.
    I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.

    I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
    Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

    If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
    Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?

    How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?

    Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?

    If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
    Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.

    People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.

    If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?

    You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
    The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
    Forever?

    And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
    Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
    Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.

    See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
    He was released early because of his age.

    My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
    What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
    Does "changing your family name to something more English" help?

    Asking for a pensioner currently isolating near Slough.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,617
    brokenwheel said:

    Told ya so.

    You pop back here this time tomorrow.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025