If there had been an equal number of men and women voting then Trump would have won a second term –
Comments
-
-
My detailed analysis (all of 30 seconds' thought) is that President Trump is currently behaving irrationally and it is therefore impossible to reason about how and when he will concede (or do anything else, for that matter). 1/8 is not enough to compensate for that. Good luck.Mysticrose said:BETTING POST
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020
When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/81 -
Philip_Thompson said:
Aren't many of the 6 million in California?Alistair said:
Still about 6 million votes to count so this comment is going to age poorly.DavidL said:Although it is now close Biden's entire popular vote lead comes from California. In the rest of the US Trump is fractionally ahead.
Though it was a bit of an unfair comparison by David as excluding Biden's best state and then comparing with the other 49 is not like-for-like. You should exclude Trump's best state too and see how the remaining 48 voted if you want a fair comparison and I suspect that would give Biden the edge.
Yeah it's just ridiculous nonsense.
I do wish people would wait until the body stops breathing before beginning the post-mortem.
0 -
That's not a good long term plan - if say another Trump like leader got in control of the Federal Government.Charles said:
If they are really worried about voter suppression, Trump has given them an opening to federalise the management of federal electionsPulpstar said:First thing for Joe to announce - a full audit of ... ALL ... the results and ballots.
1 -
No they don't. The withdrawal agreement isn't a temporary agreement. It contains elements in relation to the transitional period which expire at the end of the year, but the transitional period isn't all the agreement encompasses. It is an International Treaty signed into law to cover all contingencies. Its provisions on financial obligations and Northern Ireland are completely independent on any future agreement being made (on trade or anything else) between the UK and the EU.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes we chose to leave but that doesn't mean that we're obliged to ensure nothing changes. The entire point of us leaving was to ensure things did change.OldKingCole said:
If that's what happened in Germany, case as stated, I take your point.Philip_Thompson said:
All countries break international law when they need to. The German Supreme Court only recently reconfirmed Germany's ability to do so after Merkel did, funny how little attention that gets here.OldKingCole said:
Just a thought. In her previous ;life as a prosecutor wasn't the incoming VPOTUS very hard on law-breakers? She's by no means a fan of this country anyway and this might not encourage her to change her mind.Philip_Thompson said:
No it is entirely logical.Scott_xP said:
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
The smart way to end this issue is for the EU to compromise and agree a deal, that makes all this go away. If they don't, the IMB is a safety net and more immediately required than whatever the President Elect or Veep Elect may think.
However the EU didn't throw us out, or even ask us to leave.It wanted, and AFAIK, wants us to stay. It was our idea to leave. So surely it's up to us to make things legal.
Under the EU's own rules our obligations fall away two years after invoking Article 50. That was well over a year ago, we've extended our obligations repeatedly but they expire 31/12/20 now.
1 -
Indeed. And it will be in force in full unless or until we decide otherwise just the same as any other Treaty. 🤷🏻♂️alex_ said:
No they don't. The withdrawal agreement isn't a temporary agreement. It contains elements in relation to the transitional period which expire at the end of the year, but the transitional period isn't all the agreement encompasses. It is an International Treaty signed into law to cover all contingencies. Its provisions on financial obligations and Northern Ireland are completely independent on any future agreement being made (on trade or anything else) between the UK and the EU.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes we chose to leave but that doesn't mean that we're obliged to ensure nothing changes. The entire point of us leaving was to ensure things did change.OldKingCole said:
If that's what happened in Germany, case as stated, I take your point.Philip_Thompson said:
All countries break international law when they need to. The German Supreme Court only recently reconfirmed Germany's ability to do so after Merkel did, funny how little attention that gets here.OldKingCole said:
Just a thought. In her previous ;life as a prosecutor wasn't the incoming VPOTUS very hard on law-breakers? She's by no means a fan of this country anyway and this might not encourage her to change her mind.Philip_Thompson said:
No it is entirely logical.Scott_xP said:
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
The smart way to end this issue is for the EU to compromise and agree a deal, that makes all this go away. If they don't, the IMB is a safety net and more immediately required than whatever the President Elect or Veep Elect may think.
However the EU didn't throw us out, or even ask us to leave.It wanted, and AFAIK, wants us to stay. It was our idea to leave. So surely it's up to us to make things legal.
Under the EU's own rules our obligations fall away two years after invoking Article 50. That was well over a year ago, we've extended our obligations repeatedly but they expire 31/12/20 now.
People are acting as if this is some Rubicon being crossed. All countries do this and the UK has done this before.0 -
One thing to consider is that Trump may well be trying to avoid jail: there is at least one apparently slam dunk case against him where someone has already been found guilty of conspiring with him. Several others are in the wings, including various state level charges in NY.Mysticrose said:
I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.Mysticrose said:BETTING POST
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020
When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.0 -
It's quite funny watching the truth dawn on Brexiteers like Phillip Thomson. Like Trump, it seems to take a long while to sink in but slowly it is beginning to.0
-
I don't think this is the place to discuss it but there are many countries in the world where marriage at that age is legal so the question is are you arguing it from a moral perspective or a legal one? His argument was that he thought she was over 16 and according to witnesses she looked about 20. Under all the circumstances 50 years in jail would have been excessive.TrèsDifficile said:
He should be 43 years into his 50 year jail term. A 44 year old who admitted putting his dick in a 13 year old girl, and you don't see the issue.Roger said:Just had a flick though the previous thread. Any news from 'TresDifficile' whether 87 year old Roman Polanski is still hoping to become PM?
I saw the picture of your school abuser and he looked a real bruiser. At my prep school when the matron had her day off the house master's wife nicknamed 'Titsy' used to do the surgery. She was known to do very painstaking investigations for tinea(?) and the more handsome the boy the longer she was known to take. When it was her day on the queues at the surgery were enormous.
I know I will get abuse for this post but I'm just trying to point out that not everything is as black and white as you paint it.0 -
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.Philip_Thompson said:
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.eek said:
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.Philip_Thompson said:
No it is entirely logical.Scott_xP said:
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.1 -
What "reality" is this?Mysticrose said:It's quite funny watching the truth dawn on Brexiteers like Phillip Thomson. Like Trump, it seems to take a long while to sink in but slowly it is beginning to.
I still want a compromise by all parties as I have all along. If there is no compromise then the IMB is a good safety net.0 -
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.Stuartinromford said:
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.Philip_Thompson said:
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.eek said:
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.Philip_Thompson said:
No it is entirely logical.Scott_xP said:
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.0 -
The separation between cultural and moral value is interesting.Charles said:
Give over Roger. Your attitude to sexual abuse and the whole #metoo scandal was despicableRoger said:Just had a flick though the previous thread. Any news from 'TresDifficile' whether 87 year old Roman Polanski is still hoping to become PM?
I once had a bit of a row at an art gallery - a lady overheard my conversation with my wife about Dali's fascist tendencies and she went postal on me.
Apparently, to her (a serious art critic), Dali couldn't have been a great artist *and* a Fascist, Therefore I was disparaging his art. Which made me an evil philistine......
Orwell wrote quite a good essay (including Dali) on the subject of whether art is linked to morality - and why people seem to think it is.
For the record, I think that Dali is interesting. But quite a lot of his work seems like a one shot gag to me - the melting clock etc. Nothing that would make you stand and look for hours. And he definitely was a Francophile*.
*Not the good kind0 -
Speaking of the EU:
https://twitter.com/jsrailton/status/13255468336246251570 -
Happens is around half of US schools, I believe. It's certainly not mandatory:swing_voter said:
Am I right in thinking that in US schools etc that they incessantly pledge allegiance to the flag and constitution ( I am not an expert) and so Trump now challenging the election puts a lot of Republican voters in a quandry.....they know he is a bit of tw#t, but asking them to challenge their fundamental belief in upholding the constitution is IMO a step too far for many in the Republican party and their voters..... surely it is only a matter of time when the moderate (majority?) voice among Republicans speak out - he is playing fast and loose with what are precious notions to US citizens...rcs1000 said:
Disagree.FrancisUrquhart said:
To me it all seems counter-productive. If he went with good grace, spun it as close, massive number of votes etc, and let surrogates do the conspiracy stuff, he would be on Fox News in 6 months with the top rated show.SirNorfolkPassmore said:I'd be interested to see some approval polls just now.
My instinct is Trump is trashing his own reputation at this stage - that a good proportion even of those who supported him are embarrassed by his behaviour on this one. My instinct is railing against the media and Democrats wor lying, but not US democracy as a whole, would've been the better approach purely tactically. Some of those who believe him will never vote again, and some who voted for him did so for e.g. economic reasons, and won't go with him on this. But I've been wrong on Trump before, and maybe 48% or so of the public love it.
And it matters even though he's on his way out as President. He does need to maintain his standing if he wants to make a comeback personally, or via a proxy, or to remain extremely influential in other ways, or to protect himself when the Feds come calling.
Now, he has ranted at Rupert and nobody will touch him with a bargepole and zero chance he can have another go (or his daughter) in 2024.
Remember as well, America has a funny way of forgiving people if they appear to do the humble apology e.g. Tiger Woods. Now lots of people obviously would never, but given 70 million would vote for him, still a huge market for him if he had just gone.
Also, nobody is going to defend him if twitter unperson him or they try to do him for some tax dodging etc. Again, if he gave up presidency and sounded reasonable, then twitter go after him in the future, it all looks hugely political.
So long as around 20 million Republicans think he's great, then he has the Republican Party by the balls. You need to either worship at the Temple of Trump, or he will belittle you and support your opponent.
That's why so many Republicans - people who loathe and detest Trump - have still no come out against him. They know they need his voters.
The problem is that by pandering to that group, they increase the risk that in 2024 they'll manage to put up a truly dreadful candidate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Controversy
In any event, the understanding of what the constitution means is... contested.
Beyond the point of simple reason.0 -
Indoctrination.Charles said:
My wife and daughter do it most mornings (cos they don’t at her school)swing_voter said:
Am I right in thinking that in US schools etc that they incessantly pledge allegiance to the flag and constitution ( I am not an expert) and so Trump now challenging the election puts a lot of Republican voters in a quandry.....they know he is a bit of tw#t, but asking them to challenge their fundamental belief in upholding the constitution is IMO a step too far for many in the Republican party and their voters..... surely it is only a matter of time when the moderate (majority?) voice among Republicans speak out - he is playing fast and loose with what are precious notions to US citizens...rcs1000 said:
Disagree.FrancisUrquhart said:
To me it all seems counter-productive. If he went with good grace, spun it as close, massive number of votes etc, and let surrogates do the conspiracy stuff, he would be on Fox News in 6 months with the top rated show.SirNorfolkPassmore said:I'd be interested to see some approval polls just now.
My instinct is Trump is trashing his own reputation at this stage - that a good proportion even of those who supported him are embarrassed by his behaviour on this one. My instinct is railing against the media and Democrats wor lying, but not US democracy as a whole, would've been the better approach purely tactically. Some of those who believe him will never vote again, and some who voted for him did so for e.g. economic reasons, and won't go with him on this. But I've been wrong on Trump before, and maybe 48% or so of the public love it.
And it matters even though he's on his way out as President. He does need to maintain his standing if he wants to make a comeback personally, or via a proxy, or to remain extremely influential in other ways, or to protect himself when the Feds come calling.
Now, he has ranted at Rupert and nobody will touch him with a bargepole and zero chance he can have another go (or his daughter) in 2024.
Remember as well, America has a funny way of forgiving people if they appear to do the humble apology e.g. Tiger Woods. Now lots of people obviously would never, but given 70 million would vote for him, still a huge market for him if he had just gone.
Also, nobody is going to defend him if twitter unperson him or they try to do him for some tax dodging etc. Again, if he gave up presidency and sounded reasonable, then twitter go after him in the future, it all looks hugely political.
So long as around 20 million Republicans think he's great, then he has the Republican Party by the balls. You need to either worship at the Temple of Trump, or he will belittle you and support your opponent.
That's why so many Republicans - people who loathe and detest Trump - have still no come out against him. They know they need his voters.
The problem is that by pandering to that group, they increase the risk that in 2024 they'll manage to put up a truly dreadful candidate.
0 -
Can we not let this die? It's not as if we can bet on which abuser was worse, and I'd rather not have the gory details in front of me or in my browsing history. Lord knows what adverts Google will serve up on the back of it.Charles said:
Give over Roger. Your attitude to sexual abuse and the whole #metoo scandal was despicableRoger said:Just had a flick though the previous thread. Any news from 'TresDifficile' whether 87 year old Roman Polanski is still hoping to become PM?
3 -
Yeah, not surprised by this. I wonder why more men didn’t vote this time?
Interesting thread yesterday, was reading the comments last night. I wouldn’t say the majority of posters here are left leaning, most are centrist liberals tbh. In other news, I see on Twitter both leftists and centrists have made themselves look silly since Biden’s win. Only people who didn’t embarrass themselves were the soft left.0 -
I don't think he's behaving irrationally. He wants and needs money. While he still claims to be in the running his supporters will send him money. If he concedes, they'll stop sending him money. If they stop sending him money, he'll concede. I doubt that they'll stop sending him money until the Electoral College meets, or shortly before, but he might try to pull a "I must raise $x by midnight or I will have to concede".DecrepiterJohnL said:
My detailed analysis (all of 30 seconds' thought) is that President Trump is currently behaving irrationally and it is therefore impossible to reason about how and when he will concede (or do anything else, for that matter). 1/8 is not enough to compensate for that. Good luck.Mysticrose said:BETTING POST
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020
When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/80 -
Mysticrose said:
I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.Mysticrose said:BETTING POST
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020
When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.
I don't see this as a nailed on rreturn.
There must surely be a chance that trump realises in the next couple of days that he is not going to get the decision in at least 3 states overturned, and a consession speech comes albeit filled with anger and false accusations.
I'm not saying it is likely, but a 1/9 chance (odds 1:8) seems plausible.1 -
I never knew that, but I've always despised Dali's art. I recognise it as iconic and unfathomably well-loved, but I would cheerfully see every one of his paintings torched because I find them so aesthetically offensive. I've never been able to fathom why I hate him so much, but hearing he had fascist leanings makes me feel a lot better about disparaging his "art".Malmesbury said:
The separation between cultural and moral value is interesting.Charles said:
Give over Roger. Your attitude to sexual abuse and the whole #metoo scandal was despicableRoger said:Just had a flick though the previous thread. Any news from 'TresDifficile' whether 87 year old Roman Polanski is still hoping to become PM?
I once had a bit of a row at an art gallery - a lady overheard my conversation with my wife about Dali's fascist tendencies and she went postal on me.
Apparently, to her (a serious art critic), Dali couldn't have been a great artist *and* a Fascist, Therefore I was disparaging his art. Which made me an evil philistine......
Orwell wrote quite a good essay (including Dali) on the subject of whether art is linked to morality - and why people seem to think it is.
For the record, I think that Dali is interesting. But quite a lot of his work seems like a one shot gag to me - the melting clock etc. Nothing that would make you stand and look for hours. And he definitely was a Francophile*.
*Not the good kind0 -
By the way, the utterly vile 'Bobby Sands' trend yesterday from Rangers football fans* is a reminder that whilst we may look in sanctimonious horror at Trump's sectarianism, it exists in the UK not so far from the surface.
It's why the Northern Ireland peace process culminating in the Good Friday Agreement must never be sacrificed on the altar of far right ideology.
Joe Biden and the EU will ensure it isn't.
(* 8-0 = Ate-Nothing = Bobby Sands.)1 -
I'm sure more men voted in 2020 than in 2016.The_Apocalypse said:Yeah, not surprised by this. I wonder why more men didn’t vote this time?
Interesting thread yesterday, was reading the comments last night. I wouldn’t say the majority of posters here are left leaning, most are centrist liberals tbh. In other news, I see on Twitter both leftists and centrists have made themselves look silly since Biden’s win. Only people who didn’t embarrass themselves were the soft left.0 -
The EU wants to make things easier for authoritarian regimes. There's a thin line between pro-democracy campaigners, dissidents, traitors and terrorists.Morris_Dancer said:Speaking of the EU:
https://twitter.com/jsrailton/status/13255468336246251570 -
You make a fair point but Brexit is a religion and therefore trying to use logic won't cut it. I was at a function with some ultra orthodox Jews who were giving me reasons -as they saw it- that proved the world was 6000 years old. They were by no means stupid -one was a doctor fortunately not mine- and they argued using a twisted logic which amounted to blind faith.Mysticrose said:It's quite funny watching the truth dawn on Brexiteers like Phillip Thomson. Like Trump, it seems to take a long while to sink in but slowly it is beginning to.
0 -
AIUI, former US Presidents continue to be addressed as Mr President and have security bodyguards for life. I'm curious how would that work in a prison setting.Fysics_Teacher said:
One thing to consider is that Trump may well be trying to avoid jail: there is at least one apparently slam dunk case against him where someone has already been found guilty of conspiring with him. Several others are in the wings, including various state level charges in NY.Mysticrose said:
I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.Mysticrose said:BETTING POST
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020
When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.
Good morning, everyone.2 -
In that event, it appears that it’s just the case that even more women voted than previously. Although Trump’s misogyny was obvious in 2016, so I have no idea why it took an entire presidential term for some women to feel motivated to vote against him.eristdoof said:
I'm sure more men voted in 2020 than in 2016.The_Apocalypse said:Yeah, not surprised by this. I wonder why more men didn’t vote this time?
Interesting thread yesterday, was reading the comments last night. I wouldn’t say the majority of posters here are left leaning, most are centrist liberals tbh. In other news, I see on Twitter both leftists and centrists have made themselves look silly since Biden’s win. Only people who didn’t embarrass themselves were the soft left.0 -
Good luck with it Mysticrose but I’m not taking that bet. I think it will probably win but Trump is entirely unpredictable - he’s gone very quiet over the last couple of days and I could easily see a defiant concession “It was rigged and it’s a sham but our lawyers have concluded we cannot win in this rigged system. Therefore, I have no choice but to concede - for now! However, the fight continues and I will be back!” Or similar.Mysticrose said:
I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.Mysticrose said:BETTING POST
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020
When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.
I’d need at least 8/15 to tempt me.2 -
The money Trump is currently collecting seems to be intended to pay the general campaigning bill far more than fighting any court case- if I read this part of the T&Cs correctly. And remember Trump did seem to run out of money for adverts towards the end so I suspect there are big bills that still need to be paid.edmundintokyo said:
I don't think he's behaving irrationally. He wants and needs money. While he still claims to be in the running his supporters will send him money. If he concedes, they'll stop sending him money. If they stop sending him money, he'll concede. I doubt that they'll stop sending him money until the Electoral College meets, or shortly before, but he might try to pull a "I must raise $x by midnight or I will have to concede".DecrepiterJohnL said:
My detailed analysis (all of 30 seconds' thought) is that President Trump is currently behaving irrationally and it is therefore impossible to reason about how and when he will concede (or do anything else, for that matter). 1/8 is not enough to compensate for that. Good luck.Mysticrose said:BETTING POST
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020
When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
60% to DJTP for deposit in DJTP’s 2020 General Election Account for the retirement of general election debt (up to a maximum of $2,800/$5,000) or, if such debt has been retired or any portion of the contribution would exceed the limit to the 2020 General Election Account, for deposit in DJTP’s Recount Account (up to a maximum of $2,800/$5,000); 40% to the RNC’s Operating account (up to a maximum of $35,500/$15,000); and any additional funds to the RNC for deposit in the RNC’s Legal Proceedings account or Headquarters account (up to a maximum of $213,000/$90,000).
0 -
Not at all, my piratical friend.Philip_Thompson said:
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.Stuartinromford said:
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.Philip_Thompson said:
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.eek said:
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.Philip_Thompson said:
No it is entirely logical.Scott_xP said:
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.0 -
I know this seems strange - but I think you are wrong to think so.Roy_G_Biv said:
I never knew that, but I've always despised Dali's art. I recognise it as iconic and unfathomably well-loved, but I would cheerfully see every one of his paintings torched because I find them so aesthetically offensive. I've never been able to fathom why I hate him so much, but hearing he had fascist leanings makes me feel a lot better about disparaging his "art".Malmesbury said:
The separation between cultural and moral value is interesting.Charles said:
Give over Roger. Your attitude to sexual abuse and the whole #metoo scandal was despicableRoger said:Just had a flick though the previous thread. Any news from 'TresDifficile' whether 87 year old Roman Polanski is still hoping to become PM?
I once had a bit of a row at an art gallery - a lady overheard my conversation with my wife about Dali's fascist tendencies and she went postal on me.
Apparently, to her (a serious art critic), Dali couldn't have been a great artist *and* a Fascist, Therefore I was disparaging his art. Which made me an evil philistine......
Orwell wrote quite a good essay (including Dali) on the subject of whether art is linked to morality - and why people seem to think it is.
For the record, I think that Dali is interesting. But quite a lot of his work seems like a one shot gag to me - the melting clock etc. Nothing that would make you stand and look for hours. And he definitely was a Francophile*.
*Not the good kind
The idea that art and morality are intrinsically linked can lead to some very odd places. Basically it doesn't work.
The effect that Dali has on you, by the way, is not uncommon. It is also intended - his idea was to be a transgressor of all the norms. He was trying to offend people. See Dadaism (among other influences).
Some have tried to argue that his espousing the Nationalist side in Spain was part of an artistic "pose". If so, it was one of the longest poses in the history of art....
Another classic of the genre of "Art forgives all" is the Ezra Pound "persecution".
Pound, an American poet of note, moved to Italy, became a Fascist & extreme anti-semite, and spent WWII broadcasting Fascist propaganda on Italian radio. After the war the Americans caught him and locked him up. It has been said that friends arranged for him to be treated as a mental case to avoid prosecution.
In any event, he was sectioned by the examining head shrinkers. After a while he manage to convince them that he was less nuts and got released. For the rest of his life, he kept relapsing into Fascist nuttery - he does seem to have been rather out there.....
Apparently the above represented a persecution. Because he was great poet.0 -
The quality of painting on the famous Dali originals is supurb. His use of colour is not done justice from prints and posters.Malmesbury said:
The separation between cultural and moral value is interesting.Charles said:
Give over Roger. Your attitude to sexual abuse and the whole #metoo scandal was despicableRoger said:Just had a flick though the previous thread. Any news from 'TresDifficile' whether 87 year old Roman Polanski is still hoping to become PM?
I once had a bit of a row at an art gallery - a lady overheard my conversation with my wife about Dali's fascist tendencies and she went postal on me.
Apparently, to her (a serious art critic), Dali couldn't have been a great artist *and* a Fascist, Therefore I was disparaging his art. Which made me an evil philistine......
Orwell wrote quite a good essay (including Dali) on the subject of whether art is linked to morality - and why people seem to think it is.
For the record, I think that Dali is interesting. But quite a lot of his work seems like a one shot gag to me - the melting clock etc. Nothing that would make you stand and look for hours. And he definitely was a Francophile*.
*Not the good kind
But he was certainly not a "one trick pony", nowhere near. I'm guessing that you have only seen one genre from him, the style that makes him famous. If anyone wants to see great exhibition of the variety in his work, I highly recommend the Teatro Dali in Figueres, an easy train journey from Barcelona (once Corona is under controll of course).0 -
I once had a Christian try to convince me of something similar. He was a physicist. I drew him onto the subject of carbon dating and it didn't go well for him. Next time I saw him, he gone off and researched more about it on his godbothering homepages of filth, and he declared that modern physics was all part of the godless conspiracy, and radioactive decay must somehow not work the way that we both knew it does.Roger said:
You make a fair point but Brexit is a religion and therefore trying to use logic won't cut it. I was at a function with some ultra orthodox Jews who were giving me reasons -as they saw it- that proved the world was 6000 years old. They were by no means stupid -one was a doctor fortunately not mine- and they argued using a twisted logic not blind faith.Mysticrose said:It's quite funny watching the truth dawn on Brexiteers like Phillip Thomson. Like Trump, it seems to take a long while to sink in but slowly it is beginning to.
It was one of the saddest things I've ever witnessed.3 -
If that were so then Trump should negotiate a pardon, and to include NY. If it is about money then Trump should be shy of tarnishing the Trump brand for future licence deals, especially from overseas. And so on. Nothing makes sense; imo Trump's behaviour is irrational.Fysics_Teacher said:
One thing to consider is that Trump may well be trying to avoid jail: there is at least one apparently slam dunk case against him where someone has already been found guilty of conspiring with him. Several others are in the wings, including various state level charges in NY.Mysticrose said:
I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.Mysticrose said:BETTING POST
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020
When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.0 -
The only person that's tried to rig the election is Trump. And there's clear evidence for that with Dejoy's refusal to implement Judge Sullivan's court order regarding sweeping postal centres.
Democrats know this but they're not going large on it because they don't want to call the integrity of the election into question at all. They're biting their tongues on this one.2 -
Yes, but also IL and NY, two other norotiously slow counters.Philip_Thompson said:
Aren't many of the 6 million in California?Alistair said:
Still about 6 million votes to count so this comment is going to age poorly.DavidL said:Although it is now close Biden's entire popular vote lead comes from California. In the rest of the US Trump is fractionally ahead.
Though it was a bit of an unfair comparison by David as excluding Biden's best state and then comparing with the other 49 is not like-for-like. You should exclude Trump's best state too and see how the remaining 48 voted if you want a fair comparison and I suspect that would give Biden the edge.
It is a abysmal, GOP, way of framing things "Ah, you got most votes but not in 'Real America (TM)'
The way the GOP talk you'd think it was a total fluke that the Democrats dominate California and not as the result of years of successful work and orginisation.0 -
The problem with much analysis is that it starts with the polls being off, but then proceeds by relying on polling evidence.Mysticrose said:Philip_Thompson said:
Aren't many of the 6 million in California?Alistair said:
Still about 6 million votes to count so this comment is going to age poorly.DavidL said:Although it is now close Biden's entire popular vote lead comes from California. In the rest of the US Trump is fractionally ahead.
Though it was a bit of an unfair comparison by David as excluding Biden's best state and then comparing with the other 49 is not like-for-like. You should exclude Trump's best state too and see how the remaining 48 voted if you want a fair comparison and I suspect that would give Biden the edge.
Yeah it's just ridiculous nonsense.
I do wish people would wait until the body stops breathing before beginning the post-mortem.0 -
It doesn't tarnish his brand. Maga enthusiasts believe he won, and they'll think more highly of him if he says he won and woz robbed than if he says he lost. Everybody else was long since sick of his bullshit, his brand was already worthless with them.DecrepiterJohnL said:
If that were so then Trump should negotiate a pardon, and to include NY. If it is about money then Trump should be shy of tarnishing the Trump brand for future licence deals, especially from overseas. And so on. Nothing makes sense; imo Trump's behaviour is irrational.Fysics_Teacher said:
One thing to consider is that Trump may well be trying to avoid jail: there is at least one apparently slam dunk case against him where someone has already been found guilty of conspiring with him. Several others are in the wings, including various state level charges in NY.Mysticrose said:
I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.Mysticrose said:BETTING POST
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020
When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.2 -
I have my own confession to make which is a little naughty of me but perhaps not. I didn't have a PaddyPower account so I took up their £20 free first bet offer i.e. if it loses you get your money back. As it must be a Sportsbook bet and, as far as I can see, needs to be settled in 90 days and as it's their only US market currently open I went for it. Entirely risk free therefore. I know the win would be piddling but every little counts and it's more for satisfaction value really!Casino_Royale said:
Good luck with it Mysticrose but I’m not taking that bet. I think it will probably win but Trump is entirely unpredictable - he’s gone very quiet over the last couple of days and I could easily see a defiant concession “It was rigged and it’s a sham but our lawyers have concluded we cannot win in this rigged system. Therefore, I have no choice but to concede - for now! However, the fight continues and I will be back!” Or similar.Mysticrose said:
I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.Mysticrose said:BETTING POST
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020
When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.
I’d need at least 8/15 to tempt me.
0 -
It's just a resolution and they carry no legal weight see https://t.co/1D0IgcWXRF?amp=1DecrepiterJohnL said:
The EU wants to make things easier for authoritarian regimes. There's a thin line between pro-democracy campaigners, dissidents, traitors and terrorists.Morris_Dancer said:Speaking of the EU:
https://twitter.com/jsrailton/status/1325546833624625157
"They have no legal effect but they can invite the Commission to make a proposal or take further action." As there's no legal effect, it does not threaten end-to-end encryption in the EU.
Plus it's Austria so it's probably being done to annoy Germany - who are I believe raising problems with data security between Germany and Austria at the moment.1 -
Only just though. Without California and its 55 ECVs the EC would have 483 electors with 242 to win.Roy_G_Biv said:
And Biden would still win the electoral college without California.DavidL said:Although it is now close Biden's entire popular vote lead comes from California. In the rest of the US Trump is fractionally ahead.
I think all of Biden’s states (AZ/NV/GA/PA/WI/MI) would get him to 253 ECVs so losing any one of those, except Nevada and he’d fail.
California is a great foundation block for the Dems.0 -
Oh, I think he was a great artist. The problem, I think, is that his speed of production meant that many of his works were literally thrown together in hours*. The ones where he took time are completely different.eristdoof said:
The quality of painting on the famous Dali originals is supurb. His use of colour is not done justice from prints and posters.Malmesbury said:
The separation between cultural and moral value is interesting.Charles said:
Give over Roger. Your attitude to sexual abuse and the whole #metoo scandal was despicableRoger said:Just had a flick though the previous thread. Any news from 'TresDifficile' whether 87 year old Roman Polanski is still hoping to become PM?
I once had a bit of a row at an art gallery - a lady overheard my conversation with my wife about Dali's fascist tendencies and she went postal on me.
Apparently, to her (a serious art critic), Dali couldn't have been a great artist *and* a Fascist, Therefore I was disparaging his art. Which made me an evil philistine......
Orwell wrote quite a good essay (including Dali) on the subject of whether art is linked to morality - and why people seem to think it is.
For the record, I think that Dali is interesting. But quite a lot of his work seems like a one shot gag to me - the melting clock etc. Nothing that would make you stand and look for hours. And he definitely was a Francophile*.
*Not the good kind
But he was certainly not a "one trick pony", nowhere near. I'm guessing that you have only seen one genre from him, the style that makes him famous. If anyone wants to see great exhibition of the variety in his work, I highly recommend the Teatro Dali in Figueres, an easy train journey from Barcelona (once Corona is under controll of course).
*And there is quote a bit of debate about how much he actually did in some of them. As opposed to a team of "collaborators"0 -
Everly?Scott_xP said:Who is the more divorced from reality?
Don or Phil?1 -
Also the on the night margins are fixed in the head not the final score. So "Nevada is a knife edge and the polls are wrong". As it is Nevada has busted past my pre election prediction and is actually at the RCP polling average (and moving more and more towards the 538 average).DecrepiterJohnL said:
The problem with much analysis is that it starts with the polls being off, but then proceeds by relying on polling evidence.Mysticrose said:Philip_Thompson said:
Aren't many of the 6 million in California?Alistair said:
Still about 6 million votes to count so this comment is going to age poorly.DavidL said:Although it is now close Biden's entire popular vote lead comes from California. In the rest of the US Trump is fractionally ahead.
Though it was a bit of an unfair comparison by David as excluding Biden's best state and then comparing with the other 49 is not like-for-like. You should exclude Trump's best state too and see how the remaining 48 voted if you want a fair comparison and I suspect that would give Biden the edge.
Yeah it's just ridiculous nonsense.
I do wish people would wait until the body stops breathing before beginning the post-mortem.0 -
Has everyone read the Independent report on the Four Seasons Press Conference https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/i-saw-donald-trump-s-presidency-come-crashing-down-at-four-seasons-total-landscaping-b1699962.html1
-
Sounds like you have a lot of hate and anger issues.Roy_G_Biv said:
I never knew that, but I've always despised Dali's art. I recognise it as iconic and unfathomably well-loved, but I would cheerfully see every one of his paintings torched because I find them so aesthetically offensive. I've never been able to fathom why I hate him so much, but hearing he had fascist leanings makes me feel a lot better about disparaging his "art".Malmesbury said:
The separation between cultural and moral value is interesting.Charles said:
Give over Roger. Your attitude to sexual abuse and the whole #metoo scandal was despicableRoger said:Just had a flick though the previous thread. Any news from 'TresDifficile' whether 87 year old Roman Polanski is still hoping to become PM?
I once had a bit of a row at an art gallery - a lady overheard my conversation with my wife about Dali's fascist tendencies and she went postal on me.
Apparently, to her (a serious art critic), Dali couldn't have been a great artist *and* a Fascist, Therefore I was disparaging his art. Which made me an evil philistine......
Orwell wrote quite a good essay (including Dali) on the subject of whether art is linked to morality - and why people seem to think it is.
For the record, I think that Dali is interesting. But quite a lot of his work seems like a one shot gag to me - the melting clock etc. Nothing that would make you stand and look for hours. And he definitely was a Francophile*.
*Not the good kind
I feel sorry for you1 -
Agree, I'm genuinely purplexed that any believing Christian, any woman, and anyone who values democracy in the US can vote for Trump. I remember saying in October 2016, that I cannot believe how the traditional Republicans who support traditional conservative American values can vote for Trump.The_Apocalypse said:
In that event, it appears that it’s just the case that even more women voted than previously. Although Trump’s misogyny was obvious in 2016, so I have no idea why it took an entire presidential term for some women to feel motivated to vote against him.eristdoof said:
I'm sure more men voted in 2020 than in 2016.The_Apocalypse said:Yeah, not surprised by this. I wonder why more men didn’t vote this time?
Interesting thread yesterday, was reading the comments last night. I wouldn’t say the majority of posters here are left leaning, most are centrist liberals tbh. In other news, I see on Twitter both leftists and centrists have made themselves look silly since Biden’s win. Only people who didn’t embarrass themselves were the soft left.
I guess the fear of a Democrat president, any Democrat president, was enough justification to throw their values and beliefs under a bus.1 -
I get it from an intellectual level, that the art and the artist do not need to be considered together. I understand it in my head. But my heart tells me otherwise. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it just is. The best justification I can offer is that the biography can distract from the art. Certainly I can't enjoy a Polanski film without also being reminded of the things he's done away from cinema. You can explain the artistry, but the distraction doesn't get forgotten.Malmesbury said:
I know this seems strange - but I think you are wrong to think so.Roy_G_Biv said:
I never knew that, but I've always despised Dali's art. I recognise it as iconic and unfathomably well-loved, but I would cheerfully see every one of his paintings torched because I find them so aesthetically offensive. I've never been able to fathom why I hate him so much, but hearing he had fascist leanings makes me feel a lot better about disparaging his "art".Malmesbury said:
The separation between cultural and moral value is interesting.Charles said:
Give over Roger. Your attitude to sexual abuse and the whole #metoo scandal was despicableRoger said:Just had a flick though the previous thread. Any news from 'TresDifficile' whether 87 year old Roman Polanski is still hoping to become PM?
I once had a bit of a row at an art gallery - a lady overheard my conversation with my wife about Dali's fascist tendencies and she went postal on me.
Apparently, to her (a serious art critic), Dali couldn't have been a great artist *and* a Fascist, Therefore I was disparaging his art. Which made me an evil philistine......
Orwell wrote quite a good essay (including Dali) on the subject of whether art is linked to morality - and why people seem to think it is.
For the record, I think that Dali is interesting. But quite a lot of his work seems like a one shot gag to me - the melting clock etc. Nothing that would make you stand and look for hours. And he definitely was a Francophile*.
*Not the good kind
The idea that art and morality are intrinsically linked can lead to some very odd places. Basically it doesn't work.
The effect that Dali has on you, by the way, is not uncommon. It is also intended - his idea was to be a transgressor of all the norms. He was trying to offend people. See Dadaism (among other influences).
Some have tried to argue that his espousing the Nationalist side in Spain was part of an artistic "pose". If so, it was one of the longest poses in the history of art....
Another classic of the genre of "Art forgives all" is the Ezra Pound "persecution".
Pound, an American poet of note, moved to Italy, became a Fascist & extreme anti-semite, and spent WWII broadcasting Fascist propaganda on Italian radio. After the war the Americans caught him and locked him up. It has been said that friends arranged for him to be treated as a mental case to avoid prosecution.
In any event, he was sectioned by the examining head shrinkers. After a while he manage to convince them that he was less nuts and got released. For the rest of his life, he kept relapsing into Fascist nuttery - he does seem to have been rather out there.....
Apparently the above represented a persecution. Because he was great poet.
And yes, the reaction I have is certainly not untypical. But I don't have the same reaction with other surrealist or dadaist art. It's not my favourite genre, but I don't get furious like I do with Dali. Maybe that just means he was very good at it?
Thanks for the intro to Pound. Someone I know nothing about, I might read a bit more, sounds interesting.0 -
Ah well that’s different.Mysticrose said:
I have my own confession to make which is a little naughty of me but perhaps not. I didn't have a PaddyPower account so I took up their £20 free first bet offer i.e. if it loses you get your money back. As it must be a Sportsbook bet and, as far as I can see, needs to be settled in 90 days and as it's their only US market currently open I went for it. Entirely risk free therefore. I know the win would be piddling but every little counts and it's more for satisfaction value really!Casino_Royale said:
Good luck with it Mysticrose but I’m not taking that bet. I think it will probably win but Trump is entirely unpredictable - he’s gone very quiet over the last couple of days and I could easily see a defiant concession “It was rigged and it’s a sham but our lawyers have concluded we cannot win in this rigged system. Therefore, I have no choice but to concede - for now! However, the fight continues and I will be back!” Or similar.Mysticrose said:
I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.Mysticrose said:BETTING POST
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020
When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.
I’d need at least 8/15 to tempt me.0 -
The Guardian's was a lot funnier - edit although for some reason they've now taken down all the hilarious tweets and written them into the piece. Boring.eek said:Has everyone read the Independent report on the Four Seasons Press Conference https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/i-saw-donald-trump-s-presidency-come-crashing-down-at-four-seasons-total-landscaping-b1699962.html
0 -
I suspect that most women know or have had a brush in with someone like Trump. They know all too well his type. That's why they voted to get rid of him.
0 -
Morning Casino. Don't worry, I'm a thousand miles from the escarpments of your volcanic fury. And I forgive you. Have a lovely day.Casino_Royale said:
Sounds like you have a lot of hate and anger issues.Roy_G_Biv said:
I never knew that, but I've always despised Dali's art. I recognise it as iconic and unfathomably well-loved, but I would cheerfully see every one of his paintings torched because I find them so aesthetically offensive. I've never been able to fathom why I hate him so much, but hearing he had fascist leanings makes me feel a lot better about disparaging his "art".Malmesbury said:
The separation between cultural and moral value is interesting.Charles said:
Give over Roger. Your attitude to sexual abuse and the whole #metoo scandal was despicableRoger said:Just had a flick though the previous thread. Any news from 'TresDifficile' whether 87 year old Roman Polanski is still hoping to become PM?
I once had a bit of a row at an art gallery - a lady overheard my conversation with my wife about Dali's fascist tendencies and she went postal on me.
Apparently, to her (a serious art critic), Dali couldn't have been a great artist *and* a Fascist, Therefore I was disparaging his art. Which made me an evil philistine......
Orwell wrote quite a good essay (including Dali) on the subject of whether art is linked to morality - and why people seem to think it is.
For the record, I think that Dali is interesting. But quite a lot of his work seems like a one shot gag to me - the melting clock etc. Nothing that would make you stand and look for hours. And he definitely was a Francophile*.
*Not the good kind
I feel sorry for you0 -
Federal pardons don't cover state level crimes.DecrepiterJohnL said:
If that were so then Trump should negotiate a pardon, and to include NY. If it is about money then Trump should be shy of tarnishing the Trump brand for future licence deals, especially from overseas. And so on. Nothing makes sense; imo Trump's behaviour is irrational.Fysics_Teacher said:
One thing to consider is that Trump may well be trying to avoid jail: there is at least one apparently slam dunk case against him where someone has already been found guilty of conspiring with him. Several others are in the wings, including various state level charges in NY.Mysticrose said:
I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.Mysticrose said:BETTING POST
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020
When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.0 -
Indeed.Alistair said:
Yes, but also IL and NY, two other norotiously slow counters.Philip_Thompson said:
Aren't many of the 6 million in California?Alistair said:
Still about 6 million votes to count so this comment is going to age poorly.DavidL said:Although it is now close Biden's entire popular vote lead comes from California. In the rest of the US Trump is fractionally ahead.
Though it was a bit of an unfair comparison by David as excluding Biden's best state and then comparing with the other 49 is not like-for-like. You should exclude Trump's best state too and see how the remaining 48 voted if you want a fair comparison and I suspect that would give Biden the edge.
It is a abysmal, GOP, way of framing things "Ah, you got most votes but not in 'Real America (TM)'
The way the GOP talk you'd think it was a total fluke that the Democrats dominate California and not as the result of years of successful work and orginisation.
When I was a young adult it was the other way round, the GOP had dominated California for years. It was huge news that Clinton won California in 1992.0 -
Aren't all artists a bit eccentric, tortured and odd?
Took me a minute to cotton on this morning; for a second I was trying to work out why everyone thought the Dalai Lama was a fascist.2 -
You should have asked him to work out how long a photon takes to journey, via a random path, from the centre of the sun to the surface. IIRC, it's abut 10,000 years.Roy_G_Biv said:
I once had a Christian try to convince me of something similar. He was a physicist. I drew him onto the subject of carbon dating and it didn't go well for him. Next time I saw him, he gone off and researched more about it on his godbothering homepages of filth, and he declared that modern physics was all part of the godless conspiracy, and radioactive decay must somehow not work the way that we both knew it does.Roger said:
You make a fair point but Brexit is a religion and therefore trying to use logic won't cut it. I was at a function with some ultra orthodox Jews who were giving me reasons -as they saw it- that proved the world was 6000 years old. They were by no means stupid -one was a doctor fortunately not mine- and they argued using a twisted logic not blind faith.Mysticrose said:It's quite funny watching the truth dawn on Brexiteers like Phillip Thomson. Like Trump, it seems to take a long while to sink in but slowly it is beginning to.
It was one of the saddest things I've ever witnessed.0 -
Trump is the classic example of someone that other people have sucked up to his whole life. Hugely damaging if someone doesn’t turn around to you and say ‘no’ or ‘nah, that’s bollocks’. What’s worrying is much of our economy and society is organised and led by putting people in that position.1
-
But that's actually a good point: would we say that because someone was morally pure their art must therefore be superb? What do the Dalai Lama's painting look like?Casino_Royale said:Aren't all artists a bit eccentric, tortured and odd?
Took me a minute to cotton on this morning; for a second I was trying to work out why everyone thought the Dalai Lama was a fascist.0 -
There was a Dali exhibition at the Grimaldi centre in Monaco last summer. I've seen several over the years but this was the best. It went further than his paintings. I enjoy his work but he'll struggle to ever be taken too seriously. He was too much of a publicity seeker and showman. A bit like Warhol. Great artists at that time were meant to let the work speak for them.eristdoof said:
The quality of painting on the famous Dali originals is supurb. His use of colour is not done justice from prints and posters.Malmesbury said:
The separation between cultural and moral value is interesting.Charles said:
Give over Roger. Your attitude to sexual abuse and the whole #metoo scandal was despicableRoger said:Just had a flick though the previous thread. Any news from 'TresDifficile' whether 87 year old Roman Polanski is still hoping to become PM?
I once had a bit of a row at an art gallery - a lady overheard my conversation with my wife about Dali's fascist tendencies and she went postal on me.
Apparently, to her (a serious art critic), Dali couldn't have been a great artist *and* a Fascist, Therefore I was disparaging his art. Which made me an evil philistine......
Orwell wrote quite a good essay (including Dali) on the subject of whether art is linked to morality - and why people seem to think it is.
For the record, I think that Dali is interesting. But quite a lot of his work seems like a one shot gag to me - the melting clock etc. Nothing that would make you stand and look for hours. And he definitely was a Francophile*.
*Not the good kind
But he was certainly not a "one trick pony", nowhere near. I'm guessing that you have only seen one genre from him, the style that makes him famous. If anyone wants to see great exhibition of the variety in his work, I highly recommend the Teatro Dali in Figueres, an easy train journey from Barcelona (once Corona is under controll of course).
https://www.miells.com/en/discover/monaco-art-design/dali-exhibition-monaco/
0 -
Roy_G_Biv said:
Morning Casino. Don't worry, I'm a thousand miles from the escarpments of your volcanic fury. And I forgive you. Have a lovely day.Casino_Royale said:
Sounds like you have a lot of hate and anger issues.Roy_G_Biv said:
I never knew that, but I've always despised Dali's art. I recognise it as iconic and unfathomably well-loved, but I would cheerfully see every one of his paintings torched because I find them so aesthetically offensive. I've never been able to fathom why I hate him so much, but hearing he had fascist leanings makes me feel a lot better about disparaging his "art".Malmesbury said:
The separation between cultural and moral value is interesting.Charles said:
Give over Roger. Your attitude to sexual abuse and the whole #metoo scandal was despicableRoger said:Just had a flick though the previous thread. Any news from 'TresDifficile' whether 87 year old Roman Polanski is still hoping to become PM?
I once had a bit of a row at an art gallery - a lady overheard my conversation with my wife about Dali's fascist tendencies and she went postal on me.
Apparently, to her (a serious art critic), Dali couldn't have been a great artist *and* a Fascist, Therefore I was disparaging his art. Which made me an evil philistine......
Orwell wrote quite a good essay (including Dali) on the subject of whether art is linked to morality - and why people seem to think it is.
For the record, I think that Dali is interesting. But quite a lot of his work seems like a one shot gag to me - the melting clock etc. Nothing that would make you stand and look for hours. And he definitely was a Francophile*.
*Not the good kind
I feel sorry for you
I don't think you are hun. You recognise a little bit of something in me that you really hate about yourself.Roy_G_Biv said:
Morning Casino. Don't worry, I'm a thousand miles from the escarpments of your volcanic fury. And I forgive you. Have a lovely day.Casino_Royale said:
Sounds like you have a lot of hate and anger issues.Roy_G_Biv said:
I never knew that, but I've always despised Dali's art. I recognise it as iconic and unfathomably well-loved, but I would cheerfully see every one of his paintings torched because I find them so aesthetically offensive. I've never been able to fathom why I hate him so much, but hearing he had fascist leanings makes me feel a lot better about disparaging his "art".Malmesbury said:
The separation between cultural and moral value is interesting.Charles said:
Give over Roger. Your attitude to sexual abuse and the whole #metoo scandal was despicableRoger said:Just had a flick though the previous thread. Any news from 'TresDifficile' whether 87 year old Roman Polanski is still hoping to become PM?
I once had a bit of a row at an art gallery - a lady overheard my conversation with my wife about Dali's fascist tendencies and she went postal on me.
Apparently, to her (a serious art critic), Dali couldn't have been a great artist *and* a Fascist, Therefore I was disparaging his art. Which made me an evil philistine......
Orwell wrote quite a good essay (including Dali) on the subject of whether art is linked to morality - and why people seem to think it is.
For the record, I think that Dali is interesting. But quite a lot of his work seems like a one shot gag to me - the melting clock etc. Nothing that would make you stand and look for hours. And he definitely was a Francophile*.
*Not the good kind
I feel sorry for you
If you need any help please DM me and I'll give you some good numbers to call x0 -
That was why the sentence included to include NY (not that that is possible). I suspect Turkey is about to see a former President playing a lot of Golf...Fysics_Teacher said:
Federal pardons don't cover state level crimes.DecrepiterJohnL said:
If that were so then Trump should negotiate a pardon, and to include NY. If it is about money then Trump should be shy of tarnishing the Trump brand for future licence deals, especially from overseas. And so on. Nothing makes sense; imo Trump's behaviour is irrational.Fysics_Teacher said:
One thing to consider is that Trump may well be trying to avoid jail: there is at least one apparently slam dunk case against him where someone has already been found guilty of conspiring with him. Several others are in the wings, including various state level charges in NY.Mysticrose said:
I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.Mysticrose said:BETTING POST
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020
When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.0 -
Is The Apprentice really so successful?Jonathan said:Trump is the classic example of someone that other people have sucked up to his whole life. Hugely damaging if someone doesn’t turn around to you and say ‘no’ or ‘nah, that’s bollocks’. What’s worrying is much of our economy and society is organised and led by putting people in that position.
0 -
I've just realised it's the 9th November.
The fall of the Berlin Wall was 31 years ago today. Kristalnacht was 82 years ago today, and the fall of the Kaiser was 102 years ago today and effectively the end of WW I. To say today is an important day in German history is an understatement.6 -
For me, the Polanski issue is that he is still profiting from his work. So if you watch an unpirated copy, you are sending him money.Roy_G_Biv said:
I get it from an intellectual level, that the art and the artist do not need to be considered together. I understand it in my head. But my heart tells me otherwise. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it just is. The best justification I can offer is that the biography can distract from the art. Certainly I can't enjoy a Polanski film without also being reminded of the things he's done away from cinema. You can explain the artistry, but the distraction doesn't get forgotten.Malmesbury said:
I know this seems strange - but I think you are wrong to think so.Roy_G_Biv said:
I never knew that, but I've always despised Dali's art. I recognise it as iconic and unfathomably well-loved, but I would cheerfully see every one of his paintings torched because I find them so aesthetically offensive. I've never been able to fathom why I hate him so much, but hearing he had fascist leanings makes me feel a lot better about disparaging his "art".Malmesbury said:
The separation between cultural and moral value is interesting.Charles said:
Give over Roger. Your attitude to sexual abuse and the whole #metoo scandal was despicableRoger said:Just had a flick though the previous thread. Any news from 'TresDifficile' whether 87 year old Roman Polanski is still hoping to become PM?
I once had a bit of a row at an art gallery - a lady overheard my conversation with my wife about Dali's fascist tendencies and she went postal on me.
Apparently, to her (a serious art critic), Dali couldn't have been a great artist *and* a Fascist, Therefore I was disparaging his art. Which made me an evil philistine......
Orwell wrote quite a good essay (including Dali) on the subject of whether art is linked to morality - and why people seem to think it is.
For the record, I think that Dali is interesting. But quite a lot of his work seems like a one shot gag to me - the melting clock etc. Nothing that would make you stand and look for hours. And he definitely was a Francophile*.
*Not the good kind
The idea that art and morality are intrinsically linked can lead to some very odd places. Basically it doesn't work.
The effect that Dali has on you, by the way, is not uncommon. It is also intended - his idea was to be a transgressor of all the norms. He was trying to offend people. See Dadaism (among other influences).
Some have tried to argue that his espousing the Nationalist side in Spain was part of an artistic "pose". If so, it was one of the longest poses in the history of art....
Another classic of the genre of "Art forgives all" is the Ezra Pound "persecution".
Pound, an American poet of note, moved to Italy, became a Fascist & extreme anti-semite, and spent WWII broadcasting Fascist propaganda on Italian radio. After the war the Americans caught him and locked him up. It has been said that friends arranged for him to be treated as a mental case to avoid prosecution.
In any event, he was sectioned by the examining head shrinkers. After a while he manage to convince them that he was less nuts and got released. For the rest of his life, he kept relapsing into Fascist nuttery - he does seem to have been rather out there.....
Apparently the above represented a persecution. Because he was great poet.
And yes, the reaction I have is certainly not untypical. But I don't have the same reaction with other surrealist or dadaist art. It's not my favourite genre, but I don't get furious like I do with Dali. Maybe that just means he was very good at it?
Thanks for the intro to Pound. Someone I know nothing about, I might read a bit more, sounds interesting.
Dali was a genius - that included his propaganda skills. Really reaches people. Something he shares with a certain American President, really.
Many of the Dadaist guys remind me of the punk rock scene - quite alot went with the shock thing because they, frankly, weren't very good.....1 -
Tbh, I think Trump is a product of the direction the GOP have been going in for a while now. Look at their gerrymandering, voter suppression, and their crusade against the Voting Rights Act (which none other than John Roberts was involved in). So I wasn’t really surprised to see the GOPers vote Trump in 2016. They also desperately wanted to capture the SCOTUS so that Dems can’t do anything vaguely left as well.eristdoof said:
Agree, I'm genuinely purplexed that any believing Christian, any woman, and anyone who values democracy in the US can vote for Trump. I remember saying in October 2016, that I cannot believe how the traditional Republicans who support traditional conservative American values can vote for Trump.The_Apocalypse said:
In that event, it appears that it’s just the case that even more women voted than previously. Although Trump’s misogyny was obvious in 2016, so I have no idea why it took an entire presidential term for some women to feel motivated to vote against him.eristdoof said:
I'm sure more men voted in 2020 than in 2016.The_Apocalypse said:Yeah, not surprised by this. I wonder why more men didn’t vote this time?
Interesting thread yesterday, was reading the comments last night. I wouldn’t say the majority of posters here are left leaning, most are centrist liberals tbh. In other news, I see on Twitter both leftists and centrists have made themselves look silly since Biden’s win. Only people who didn’t embarrass themselves were the soft left.
I guess the fear of a Democrat president, any Democrat president, was enough justification to throw their values and beliefs under a bus.0 -
I think it's about 100 times longer than that.No_Offence_Alan said:
You should have asked him to work out how long a photon takes to journey, via a random path, from the centre of the sun to the surface. IIRC, it's abut 10,000 years.Roy_G_Biv said:
I once had a Christian try to convince me of something similar. He was a physicist. I drew him onto the subject of carbon dating and it didn't go well for him. Next time I saw him, he gone off and researched more about it on his godbothering homepages of filth, and he declared that modern physics was all part of the godless conspiracy, and radioactive decay must somehow not work the way that we both knew it does.Roger said:
You make a fair point but Brexit is a religion and therefore trying to use logic won't cut it. I was at a function with some ultra orthodox Jews who were giving me reasons -as they saw it- that proved the world was 6000 years old. They were by no means stupid -one was a doctor fortunately not mine- and they argued using a twisted logic not blind faith.Mysticrose said:It's quite funny watching the truth dawn on Brexiteers like Phillip Thomson. Like Trump, it seems to take a long while to sink in but slowly it is beginning to.
It was one of the saddest things I've ever witnessed.
There is a huge irony in the Young Earth creationists denial of modern cosmology: many scientist in the middle of the last century were opposed to the Big Bang theory because it was too much like a creation story (in fact it was first proposed by a catholic priest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître ).1 -
IIRC a federal pardon can't include pardoning state crimes.eek said:
That was why the sentence included to include NY (not that that is possible). I suspect Turkey is about to see a former President playing a lot of Golf...Fysics_Teacher said:
Federal pardons don't cover state level crimes.DecrepiterJohnL said:
If that were so then Trump should negotiate a pardon, and to include NY. If it is about money then Trump should be shy of tarnishing the Trump brand for future licence deals, especially from overseas. And so on. Nothing makes sense; imo Trump's behaviour is irrational.Fysics_Teacher said:
One thing to consider is that Trump may well be trying to avoid jail: there is at least one apparently slam dunk case against him where someone has already been found guilty of conspiring with him. Several others are in the wings, including various state level charges in NY.Mysticrose said:
I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.Mysticrose said:BETTING POST
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020
When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.
So unless he gets a pardon from the NY state....0 -
Anyway, play nicely everyone: I'm working from home at the moment, but I really need to actually work!0
-
Hollywood used to be pretty Republican leaning as well. Wonder what led to them turning more Dem?eristdoof said:
Indeed.Alistair said:
Yes, but also IL and NY, two other norotiously slow counters.Philip_Thompson said:
Aren't many of the 6 million in California?Alistair said:
Still about 6 million votes to count so this comment is going to age poorly.DavidL said:Although it is now close Biden's entire popular vote lead comes from California. In the rest of the US Trump is fractionally ahead.
Though it was a bit of an unfair comparison by David as excluding Biden's best state and then comparing with the other 49 is not like-for-like. You should exclude Trump's best state too and see how the remaining 48 voted if you want a fair comparison and I suspect that would give Biden the edge.
It is a abysmal, GOP, way of framing things "Ah, you got most votes but not in 'Real America (TM)'
The way the GOP talk you'd think it was a total fluke that the Democrats dominate California and not as the result of years of successful work and orginisation.
When I was a young adult it was the other way round, the GOP had dominated California for years. It was huge news that Clinton won California in 1992.0 -
Morning,AnneJGP said:
AIUI, former US Presidents continue to be addressed as Mr President and have security bodyguards for life. I'm curious how would that work in a prison setting.Fysics_Teacher said:
One thing to consider is that Trump may well be trying to avoid jail: there is at least one apparently slam dunk case against him where someone has already been found guilty of conspiring with him. Several others are in the wings, including various state level charges in NY.Mysticrose said:
I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.Mysticrose said:BETTING POST
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020
When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.
Good morning, everyone.
He'll have security guards. They're called wardens in America I believe.
1 -
You are aware that the entire original purpose for Trump's 2015 campaign was publicity - he never wanted to win either the nomination and definitely not the election.geoffw said:
Is The Apprentice really so successful?Jonathan said:Trump is the classic example of someone that other people have sucked up to his whole life. Hugely damaging if someone doesn’t turn around to you and say ‘no’ or ‘nah, that’s bollocks’. What’s worrying is much of our economy and society is organised and led by putting people in that position.
0 -
I used to dislike Dali until I visited the Dali Museum in St Petersburg, Florida. I've been a fan ever since.eristdoof said:
The quality of painting on the famous Dali originals is supurb. His use of colour is not done justice from prints and posters.Malmesbury said:
The separation between cultural and moral value is interesting.Charles said:
Give over Roger. Your attitude to sexual abuse and the whole #metoo scandal was despicableRoger said:Just had a flick though the previous thread. Any news from 'TresDifficile' whether 87 year old Roman Polanski is still hoping to become PM?
I once had a bit of a row at an art gallery - a lady overheard my conversation with my wife about Dali's fascist tendencies and she went postal on me.
Apparently, to her (a serious art critic), Dali couldn't have been a great artist *and* a Fascist, Therefore I was disparaging his art. Which made me an evil philistine......
Orwell wrote quite a good essay (including Dali) on the subject of whether art is linked to morality - and why people seem to think it is.
For the record, I think that Dali is interesting. But quite a lot of his work seems like a one shot gag to me - the melting clock etc. Nothing that would make you stand and look for hours. And he definitely was a Francophile*.
*Not the good kind
But he was certainly not a "one trick pony", nowhere near. I'm guessing that you have only seen one genre from him, the style that makes him famous. If anyone wants to see great exhibition of the variety in his work, I highly recommend the Teatro Dali in Figueres, an easy train journey from Barcelona (once Corona is under controll of course).
You have to go somewhere like that to appreciate the quality and range of his work. his work0 -
Can convicted felons stand for President? Genuine question, could be significant in 2024.Malmesbury said:
IIRC a federal pardon can't include pardoning state crimes.eek said:
That was why the sentence included to include NY (not that that is possible). I suspect Turkey is about to see a former President playing a lot of Golf...Fysics_Teacher said:
Federal pardons don't cover state level crimes.DecrepiterJohnL said:
If that were so then Trump should negotiate a pardon, and to include NY. If it is about money then Trump should be shy of tarnishing the Trump brand for future licence deals, especially from overseas. And so on. Nothing makes sense; imo Trump's behaviour is irrational.Fysics_Teacher said:
One thing to consider is that Trump may well be trying to avoid jail: there is at least one apparently slam dunk case against him where someone has already been found guilty of conspiring with him. Several others are in the wings, including various state level charges in NY.Mysticrose said:
I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.Mysticrose said:BETTING POST
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020
When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.
So unless he gets a pardon from the NY state....0 -
Hi Charles. Are you living in California now?Charles said:
My wife and daughter do it most mornings (cos they don’t at her school)swing_voter said:
Am I right in thinking that in US schools etc that they incessantly pledge allegiance to the flag and constitution ( I am not an expert) and so Trump now challenging the election puts a lot of Republican voters in a quandry.....they know he is a bit of tw#t, but asking them to challenge their fundamental belief in upholding the constitution is IMO a step too far for many in the Republican party and their voters..... surely it is only a matter of time when the moderate (majority?) voice among Republicans speak out - he is playing fast and loose with what are precious notions to US citizens...rcs1000 said:
Disagree.FrancisUrquhart said:
To me it all seems counter-productive. If he went with good grace, spun it as close, massive number of votes etc, and let surrogates do the conspiracy stuff, he would be on Fox News in 6 months with the top rated show.SirNorfolkPassmore said:I'd be interested to see some approval polls just now.
My instinct is Trump is trashing his own reputation at this stage - that a good proportion even of those who supported him are embarrassed by his behaviour on this one. My instinct is railing against the media and Democrats wor lying, but not US democracy as a whole, would've been the better approach purely tactically. Some of those who believe him will never vote again, and some who voted for him did so for e.g. economic reasons, and won't go with him on this. But I've been wrong on Trump before, and maybe 48% or so of the public love it.
And it matters even though he's on his way out as President. He does need to maintain his standing if he wants to make a comeback personally, or via a proxy, or to remain extremely influential in other ways, or to protect himself when the Feds come calling.
Now, he has ranted at Rupert and nobody will touch him with a bargepole and zero chance he can have another go (or his daughter) in 2024.
Remember as well, America has a funny way of forgiving people if they appear to do the humble apology e.g. Tiger Woods. Now lots of people obviously would never, but given 70 million would vote for him, still a huge market for him if he had just gone.
Also, nobody is going to defend him if twitter unperson him or they try to do him for some tax dodging etc. Again, if he gave up presidency and sounded reasonable, then twitter go after him in the future, it all looks hugely political.
So long as around 20 million Republicans think he's great, then he has the Republican Party by the balls. You need to either worship at the Temple of Trump, or he will belittle you and support your opponent.
That's why so many Republicans - people who loathe and detest Trump - have still no come out against him. They know they need his voters.
The problem is that by pandering to that group, they increase the risk that in 2024 they'll manage to put up a truly dreadful candidate.0 -
Which is why he should negotiate one that does.Fysics_Teacher said:
Federal pardons don't cover state level crimes.DecrepiterJohnL said:
If that were so then Trump should negotiate a pardon, and to include NY. If it is about money then Trump should be shy of tarnishing the Trump brand for future licence deals, especially from overseas. And so on. Nothing makes sense; imo Trump's behaviour is irrational.Fysics_Teacher said:
One thing to consider is that Trump may well be trying to avoid jail: there is at least one apparently slam dunk case against him where someone has already been found guilty of conspiring with him. Several others are in the wings, including various state level charges in NY.Mysticrose said:
I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.Mysticrose said:BETTING POST
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020
When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.0 -
Alexander de Pfellel....... for example......Jonathan said:Trump is the classic example of someone that other people have sucked up to his whole life. Hugely damaging if someone doesn’t turn around to you and say ‘no’ or ‘nah, that’s bollocks’. What’s worrying is much of our economy and society is organised and led by putting people in that position.
0 -
No it's not!Wulfrun_Phil said:
Can convicted felons stand for President? Genuine question, could be significant in 2024.Malmesbury said:
IIRC a federal pardon can't include pardoning state crimes.eek said:
That was why the sentence included to include NY (not that that is possible). I suspect Turkey is about to see a former President playing a lot of Golf...Fysics_Teacher said:
Federal pardons don't cover state level crimes.DecrepiterJohnL said:
If that were so then Trump should negotiate a pardon, and to include NY. If it is about money then Trump should be shy of tarnishing the Trump brand for future licence deals, especially from overseas. And so on. Nothing makes sense; imo Trump's behaviour is irrational.Fysics_Teacher said:
One thing to consider is that Trump may well be trying to avoid jail: there is at least one apparently slam dunk case against him where someone has already been found guilty of conspiring with him. Several others are in the wings, including various state level charges in NY.Mysticrose said:
I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.Mysticrose said:BETTING POST
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020
When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.
So unless he gets a pardon from the NY state....0 -
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.Stuartinromford said:
Not at all, my piratical friend.Philip_Thompson said:
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.Stuartinromford said:
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.Philip_Thompson said:
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.eek said:
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.Philip_Thompson said:
No it is entirely logical.Scott_xP said:
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?0 -
Well, he was best buddies with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_HarrerFysics_Teacher said:
But that's actually a good point: would we say that because someone was morally pure their art must therefore be superb? What do the Dalai Lama's painting look like?Casino_Royale said:Aren't all artists a bit eccentric, tortured and odd?
Took me a minute to cotton on this morning; for a second I was trying to work out why everyone thought the Dalai Lama was a fascist.
A completely unrepentant Nazi and a utter shit to boot. He never apologised for his lies about Claudio Corti, for example, going out of his way to keep the persecution going.0 -
Nixon and Reagan were both Californians, which helped.eristdoof said:
Indeed.Alistair said:
Yes, but also IL and NY, two other norotiously slow counters.Philip_Thompson said:
Aren't many of the 6 million in California?Alistair said:
Still about 6 million votes to count so this comment is going to age poorly.DavidL said:Although it is now close Biden's entire popular vote lead comes from California. In the rest of the US Trump is fractionally ahead.
Though it was a bit of an unfair comparison by David as excluding Biden's best state and then comparing with the other 49 is not like-for-like. You should exclude Trump's best state too and see how the remaining 48 voted if you want a fair comparison and I suspect that would give Biden the edge.
It is a abysmal, GOP, way of framing things "Ah, you got most votes but not in 'Real America (TM)'
The way the GOP talk you'd think it was a total fluke that the Democrats dominate California and not as the result of years of successful work and orginisation.
When I was a young adult it was the other way round, the GOP had dominated California for years. It was huge news that Clinton won California in 1992.0 -
ISTM one crucial factor in the 2016 vote was not just dislike of Mrs Clinton but a strong desire that the historic first woman president award shouldn't go to her.The_Apocalypse said:
In that event, it appears that it’s just the case that even more women voted than previously. Although Trump’s misogyny was obvious in 2016, so I have no idea why it took an entire presidential term for some women to feel motivated to vote against him.eristdoof said:
I'm sure more men voted in 2020 than in 2016.The_Apocalypse said:Yeah, not surprised by this. I wonder why more men didn’t vote this time?
Interesting thread yesterday, was reading the comments last night. I wouldn’t say the majority of posters here are left leaning, most are centrist liberals tbh. In other news, I see on Twitter both leftists and centrists have made themselves look silly since Biden’s win. Only people who didn’t embarrass themselves were the soft left.1 -
Not exactly sure why, but whenever I hear "Four Seasons Landscaping" I think of "Rubber Dingy Rapids, bro"Mysticrose said:
The Guardian's was a lot funnier - edit although for some reason they've now taken down all the hilarious tweets and written them into the piece. Boring.eek said:Has everyone read the Independent report on the Four Seasons Press Conference https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/i-saw-donald-trump-s-presidency-come-crashing-down-at-four-seasons-total-landscaping-b1699962.html
0 -
Interesting discussion to read - thanks both.Roy_G_Biv said:
I get it from an intellectual level, that the art and the artist do not need to be considered together. I understand it in my head. But my heart tells me otherwise. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it just is. The best justification I can offer is that the biography can distract from the art. Certainly I can't enjoy a Polanski film without also being reminded of the things he's done away from cinema. You can explain the artistry, but the distraction doesn't get forgotten.Malmesbury said:
I know this seems strange - but I think you are wrong to think so.Roy_G_Biv said:
I never knew that, but I've always despised Dali's art. I recognise it as iconic and unfathomably well-loved, but I would cheerfully see every one of his paintings torched because I find them so aesthetically offensive. I've never been able to fathom why I hate him so much, but hearing he had fascist leanings makes me feel a lot better about disparaging his "art".Malmesbury said:
The separation between cultural and moral value is interesting.Charles said:
Give over Roger. Your attitude to sexual abuse and the whole #metoo scandal was despicableRoger said:Just had a flick though the previous thread. Any news from 'TresDifficile' whether 87 year old Roman Polanski is still hoping to become PM?
I once had a bit of a row at an art gallery - a lady overheard my conversation with my wife about Dali's fascist tendencies and she went postal on me.
Apparently, to her (a serious art critic), Dali couldn't have been a great artist *and* a Fascist, Therefore I was disparaging his art. Which made me an evil philistine......
Orwell wrote quite a good essay (including Dali) on the subject of whether art is linked to morality - and why people seem to think it is.
For the record, I think that Dali is interesting. But quite a lot of his work seems like a one shot gag to me - the melting clock etc. Nothing that would make you stand and look for hours. And he definitely was a Francophile*.
*Not the good kind
The idea that art and morality are intrinsically linked can lead to some very odd places. Basically it doesn't work.
The effect that Dali has on you, by the way, is not uncommon. It is also intended - his idea was to be a transgressor of all the norms. He was trying to offend people. See Dadaism (among other influences).
Some have tried to argue that his espousing the Nationalist side in Spain was part of an artistic "pose". If so, it was one of the longest poses in the history of art....
Another classic of the genre of "Art forgives all" is the Ezra Pound "persecution".
Pound, an American poet of note, moved to Italy, became a Fascist & extreme anti-semite, and spent WWII broadcasting Fascist propaganda on Italian radio. After the war the Americans caught him and locked him up. It has been said that friends arranged for him to be treated as a mental case to avoid prosecution.
In any event, he was sectioned by the examining head shrinkers. After a while he manage to convince them that he was less nuts and got released. For the rest of his life, he kept relapsing into Fascist nuttery - he does seem to have been rather out there.....
Apparently the above represented a persecution. Because he was great poet.
And yes, the reaction I have is certainly not untypical. But I don't have the same reaction with other surrealist or dadaist art. It's not my favourite genre, but I don't get furious like I do with Dali. Maybe that just means he was very good at it?
Thanks for the intro to Pound. Someone I know nothing about, I might read a bit more, sounds interesting.
Personally I do try to separate the art from the person, but I agree it's a distraction - if Hitler had been a wonderful painter I'd feel uncomfortable saying or even thinking it. But intellectually I accept that it's a separate issue.
By the same token, being a great artist/poet/writer doesn't exempt you from the law. Pound? Lock him up! as Mr Trump would (not) say. He was rreated more mildly than William Joyce...0 -
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.Philip_Thompson said:
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.Stuartinromford said:
Not at all, my piratical friend.Philip_Thompson said:
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.Stuartinromford said:
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.Philip_Thompson said:
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.eek said:
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.Philip_Thompson said:
No it is entirely logical.Scott_xP said:
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?1 -
It's a good question, and very much similar to one to that I had to consider when studying the history of Weimar Republic at university some 40 years ago. The answer is that:eristdoof said:
Agree, I'm genuinely purplexed that any believing Christian, any woman, and anyone who values democracy in the US can vote for Trump. I remember saying in October 2016, that I cannot believe how the traditional Republicans who support traditional conservative American values can vote for Trump.The_Apocalypse said:
In that event, it appears that it’s just the case that even more women voted than previously. Although Trump’s misogyny was obvious in 2016, so I have no idea why it took an entire presidential term for some women to feel motivated to vote against him.eristdoof said:
I'm sure more men voted in 2020 than in 2016.The_Apocalypse said:Yeah, not surprised by this. I wonder why more men didn’t vote this time?
Interesting thread yesterday, was reading the comments last night. I wouldn’t say the majority of posters here are left leaning, most are centrist liberals tbh. In other news, I see on Twitter both leftists and centrists have made themselves look silly since Biden’s win. Only people who didn’t embarrass themselves were the soft left.
I guess the fear of a Democrat president, any Democrat president, was enough justification to throw their values and beliefs under a bus.
1. Given the right leader, fascists can frame an electoral appeal to peoples' darker side which can override all moral norms that involves buying into even the most outlandish claims made to justify such behaviour.
2. Ambitious politicians of the right who should know better will go along with fascism in order to try and further their own careers (cf. von Papen then, the Republican heirarchy now).
1 -
Yes; when are we going to have it?Philip_Thompson said:
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.Stuartinromford said:
Not at all, my piratical friend.Philip_Thompson said:
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.Stuartinromford said:
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.Philip_Thompson said:
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.eek said:
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.Philip_Thompson said:
No it is entirely logical.Scott_xP said:
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Lot to be said for New Zealand, IMHO!0 -
From the Beeb: "In Europe, France on Sunday recorded 38,619 new cases - many less than Saturday's record increase of 86,852 cases. However the health ministry said it had problems collecting data and there would be a correction on Monday."
100,000 French cases in the next day or so?0 -
IIRC there is nothing that directly bars felons for running for President.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Can convicted felons stand for President? Genuine question, could be significant in 2024.Malmesbury said:
IIRC a federal pardon can't include pardoning state crimes.eek said:
That was why the sentence included to include NY (not that that is possible). I suspect Turkey is about to see a former President playing a lot of Golf...Fysics_Teacher said:
Federal pardons don't cover state level crimes.DecrepiterJohnL said:
If that were so then Trump should negotiate a pardon, and to include NY. If it is about money then Trump should be shy of tarnishing the Trump brand for future licence deals, especially from overseas. And so on. Nothing makes sense; imo Trump's behaviour is irrational.Fysics_Teacher said:
One thing to consider is that Trump may well be trying to avoid jail: there is at least one apparently slam dunk case against him where someone has already been found guilty of conspiring with him. Several others are in the wings, including various state level charges in NY.Mysticrose said:
I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.Mysticrose said:BETTING POST
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020
When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.
So unless he gets a pardon from the NY state....0 -
That’s true, and I have sympathy with that instinct. But if I was American, I’d have still voted for Clinton, because even with all her flaws, she is still better than Trump.AnneJGP said:
ISTM one crucial factor in the 2016 vote was not just dislike of Mrs Clinton but a strong desire that the historic first woman president award shouldn't go to her.The_Apocalypse said:
In that event, it appears that it’s just the case that even more women voted than previously. Although Trump’s misogyny was obvious in 2016, so I have no idea why it took an entire presidential term for some women to feel motivated to vote against him.eristdoof said:
I'm sure more men voted in 2020 than in 2016.The_Apocalypse said:Yeah, not surprised by this. I wonder why more men didn’t vote this time?
Interesting thread yesterday, was reading the comments last night. I wouldn’t say the majority of posters here are left leaning, most are centrist liberals tbh. In other news, I see on Twitter both leftists and centrists have made themselves look silly since Biden’s win. Only people who didn’t embarrass themselves were the soft left.0 -
I think the reality that he refers to is that while Brexit is almost "done", it thoroughly proven to be shit and pointless. It is, and always was a house of cards of lies and prejudice, designed to con the easily suggestible.The other reality is that we now have it, and the disadvantages and bureaucracy that Margaret Thatcher managed to remove with the Single Market have been given away by her political pigmy successors for zero benefit in return.Philip_Thompson said:
What "reality" is this?Mysticrose said:It's quite funny watching the truth dawn on Brexiteers like Phillip Thomson. Like Trump, it seems to take a long while to sink in but slowly it is beginning to.
I still want a compromise by all parties as I have all along. If there is no compromise then the IMB is a good safety net.
Many of us are learning to live with this new reality, and will no doubt adapt to it, but we will continue to mock those that still demonstrate that they are just as gullible as they were in 2016.0 -
There's an old counterfactual that if Hitler had only been accepted at the Vienna School of Art then world history would have been very different.NickPalmer said:
Interesting discussion to read - thanks both.Roy_G_Biv said:
I get it from an intellectual level, that the art and the artist do not need to be considered together. I understand it in my head. But my heart tells me otherwise. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it just is. The best justification I can offer is that the biography can distract from the art. Certainly I can't enjoy a Polanski film without also being reminded of the things he's done away from cinema. You can explain the artistry, but the distraction doesn't get forgotten.Malmesbury said:
I know this seems strange - but I think you are wrong to think so.Roy_G_Biv said:
I never knew that, but I've always despised Dali's art. I recognise it as iconic and unfathomably well-loved, but I would cheerfully see every one of his paintings torched because I find them so aesthetically offensive. I've never been able to fathom why I hate him so much, but hearing he had fascist leanings makes me feel a lot better about disparaging his "art".Malmesbury said:
The separation between cultural and moral value is interesting.Charles said:
Give over Roger. Your attitude to sexual abuse and the whole #metoo scandal was despicableRoger said:Just had a flick though the previous thread. Any news from 'TresDifficile' whether 87 year old Roman Polanski is still hoping to become PM?
I once had a bit of a row at an art gallery - a lady overheard my conversation with my wife about Dali's fascist tendencies and she went postal on me.
Apparently, to her (a serious art critic), Dali couldn't have been a great artist *and* a Fascist, Therefore I was disparaging his art. Which made me an evil philistine......
Orwell wrote quite a good essay (including Dali) on the subject of whether art is linked to morality - and why people seem to think it is.
For the record, I think that Dali is interesting. But quite a lot of his work seems like a one shot gag to me - the melting clock etc. Nothing that would make you stand and look for hours. And he definitely was a Francophile*.
*Not the good kind
The idea that art and morality are intrinsically linked can lead to some very odd places. Basically it doesn't work.
The effect that Dali has on you, by the way, is not uncommon. It is also intended - his idea was to be a transgressor of all the norms. He was trying to offend people. See Dadaism (among other influences).
Some have tried to argue that his espousing the Nationalist side in Spain was part of an artistic "pose". If so, it was one of the longest poses in the history of art....
Another classic of the genre of "Art forgives all" is the Ezra Pound "persecution".
Pound, an American poet of note, moved to Italy, became a Fascist & extreme anti-semite, and spent WWII broadcasting Fascist propaganda on Italian radio. After the war the Americans caught him and locked him up. It has been said that friends arranged for him to be treated as a mental case to avoid prosecution.
In any event, he was sectioned by the examining head shrinkers. After a while he manage to convince them that he was less nuts and got released. For the rest of his life, he kept relapsing into Fascist nuttery - he does seem to have been rather out there.....
Apparently the above represented a persecution. Because he was great poet.
And yes, the reaction I have is certainly not untypical. But I don't have the same reaction with other surrealist or dadaist art. It's not my favourite genre, but I don't get furious like I do with Dali. Maybe that just means he was very good at it?
Thanks for the intro to Pound. Someone I know nothing about, I might read a bit more, sounds interesting.
Personally I do try to separate the art from the person, but I agree it's a distraction - if Hitler had been a wonderful painter I'd feel uncomfortable saying or even thinking it. But intellectually I accept that it's a separate issue.
By the same token, being a great artist/poet/writer doesn't exempt you from the law. Pound? Lock him up! as Mr Trump would (not) say. He was rreated more mildly than William Joyce...
1 -
Likewise Boris, Gove and Brexit. They were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off.eek said:
You are aware that the entire original purpose for Trump's 2015 campaign was publicity - he never wanted to win either the nomination and definitely not the election.geoffw said:
Is The Apprentice really so successful?Jonathan said:Trump is the classic example of someone that other people have sucked up to his whole life. Hugely damaging if someone doesn’t turn around to you and say ‘no’ or ‘nah, that’s bollocks’. What’s worrying is much of our economy and society is organised and led by putting people in that position.
Back to The Apprentice question. $400 million apparently.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/28/us/donald-trump-taxes-apprentice.html0 -
I don't think that is true. Remember they had to choose Trump over a whole slew of other Republican candidates as well prior to the main event. The problem was, and probably still is, that Trump was right about the Swamp. A self serving elite who, because of the nature of US politics and the necessity for vast sums of money to get anywhere, are thoroughly corruptible and corrupted. In case you missed it the Democrats spent over £100 million just trying to unseat one Senator in Kentucky. The Republicans will spend similar amounts on their campaigns. What must that look like to someone who is losing their job or has no means to pay for medical care?eristdoof said:
Agree, I'm genuinely purplexed that any believing Christian, any woman, and anyone who values democracy in the US can vote for Trump. I remember saying in October 2016, that I cannot believe how the traditional Republicans who support traditional conservative American values can vote for Trump.The_Apocalypse said:
In that event, it appears that it’s just the case that even more women voted than previously. Although Trump’s misogyny was obvious in 2016, so I have no idea why it took an entire presidential term for some women to feel motivated to vote against him.eristdoof said:
I'm sure more men voted in 2020 than in 2016.The_Apocalypse said:Yeah, not surprised by this. I wonder why more men didn’t vote this time?
Interesting thread yesterday, was reading the comments last night. I wouldn’t say the majority of posters here are left leaning, most are centrist liberals tbh. In other news, I see on Twitter both leftists and centrists have made themselves look silly since Biden’s win. Only people who didn’t embarrass themselves were the soft left.
I guess the fear of a Democrat president, any Democrat president, was enough justification to throw their values and beliefs under a bus.
The trouble is that Trump was entirely the wrong person to deal with this. You are right that no reasonable person should consider voting for him. But it just shows how desperate people are in the US to try and sort out the mess of corruption and self interest that underpins their political system that they were willing to vote for him.
Sadly I don't expect either the Democrats or Republicans to have learnt this lesson so the same thing will happen again in the very near future.3 -
Very good thoughts indeed. Hope you got a good degree.Wulfrun_Phil said:
It's a good question, and very much similar to one to that I had to consider when studying the history of Weimar Republic at university some 40 years ago. The answer is that:eristdoof said:
Agree, I'm genuinely purplexed that any believing Christian, any woman, and anyone who values democracy in the US can vote for Trump. I remember saying in October 2016, that I cannot believe how the traditional Republicans who support traditional conservative American values can vote for Trump.The_Apocalypse said:
In that event, it appears that it’s just the case that even more women voted than previously. Although Trump’s misogyny was obvious in 2016, so I have no idea why it took an entire presidential term for some women to feel motivated to vote against him.eristdoof said:
I'm sure more men voted in 2020 than in 2016.The_Apocalypse said:Yeah, not surprised by this. I wonder why more men didn’t vote this time?
Interesting thread yesterday, was reading the comments last night. I wouldn’t say the majority of posters here are left leaning, most are centrist liberals tbh. In other news, I see on Twitter both leftists and centrists have made themselves look silly since Biden’s win. Only people who didn’t embarrass themselves were the soft left.
I guess the fear of a Democrat president, any Democrat president, was enough justification to throw their values and beliefs under a bus.
1. Given the right leader, fascists can frame an electoral appeal to peoples' darker side which can override all moral norms that involves buying into even the most outlandish claims made to justify such behaviour.
2. Ambitious politicians of the right who should know better will go along with fascism in order to try and further their own careers (cf. von Papen then, the Republican heirarchy now).0 -
I think she would also probably have made a better president than Obama or Biden.The_Apocalypse said:
That’s true, and I have sympathy with that instinct. But if I was American, I’d have still voted for Clinton, because even with all her flaws, she is still better than Trump.AnneJGP said:
ISTM one crucial factor in the 2016 vote was not just dislike of Mrs Clinton but a strong desire that the historic first woman president award shouldn't go to her.The_Apocalypse said:
In that event, it appears that it’s just the case that even more women voted than previously. Although Trump’s misogyny was obvious in 2016, so I have no idea why it took an entire presidential term for some women to feel motivated to vote against him.eristdoof said:
I'm sure more men voted in 2020 than in 2016.The_Apocalypse said:Yeah, not surprised by this. I wonder why more men didn’t vote this time?
Interesting thread yesterday, was reading the comments last night. I wouldn’t say the majority of posters here are left leaning, most are centrist liberals tbh. In other news, I see on Twitter both leftists and centrists have made themselves look silly since Biden’s win. Only people who didn’t embarrass themselves were the soft left.0 -
He would probably end up at that Club Fed prison - the one with the golf course, where the CEOs go...rottenborough said:
Morning,AnneJGP said:
AIUI, former US Presidents continue to be addressed as Mr President and have security bodyguards for life. I'm curious how would that work in a prison setting.Fysics_Teacher said:
One thing to consider is that Trump may well be trying to avoid jail: there is at least one apparently slam dunk case against him where someone has already been found guilty of conspiring with him. Several others are in the wings, including various state level charges in NY.Mysticrose said:
I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.Mysticrose said:BETTING POST
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020
When will Donald Trump publicly concede?
For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address
where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST.
November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.
Good morning, everyone.
He'll have security guards. They're called wardens in America I believe.1
