Trump’s ongoing denial about the election results isn’t going down well with voters – politicalbetti
Options
Comments
-
It certainly shouldn't, but lets also be clear: They are trying - and that shouldn't happen.Anabobazina said:
I see we are back to coup d'etat hour on PB. The wine has sunk in, the fantastical posts are leaking through the mist.MikeL said:
Anything is possible.rottenborough said:
One of those summoned said on Tuesday that the result would not be changed. Now he is not responding to requests for comment.Alistair said:Look, I'm not saying the situation is serious but the NY Times couldn't even do a "both sides" headline
https://twitter.com/skantrow/status/1329531142186340357?s=19
Hope that doesn't mean he's busy changing his mind.
I think there has been an enormous amount of complacency - because what Trump is trying to do is so outlandish everyone just assumes it couldn't possibly happen.
Well I think it's clear now that they are going to play every conceivable trick in the book - Republican canvassers won't certify results, Republican legislatures will appoint Trump electors - they will literally go for anything.
I fully accept that most people think they won't succeed and that may well be correct - but I wouldn't put money on it - this is the USA with a highly politicised Judiciary - absolutely anything could happen.
To be clear: Ain't gonna happen.0 -
0
-
1
-
I'm not into Friends, though I agree, many find it to be great entertainment. I am not having a go at you personally, I was just mulling this topic earlier having scanned through catch up looking for stuff to watch. We praise 'moving' TV programmes, but where are they moving us from and to? If they're moving us from being in a good mood to being in a depressed mood, I question their value. The way you describe the TV show you've watched sounds like the 'reading an improving book' of the Victorian era. An act of self-flagellation that appears to have little value outside being able to tell people you've endured it (which you have duly done).TOPPING said:
It was a very uncomfortable experience.Luckyguy1983 said:
Do you like being humbled and sobered?TOPPING said:
Agree. You think it makes no sense then it all comes together very elegantly and poignantly.NickPalmer said:Just finished off the 8-part Scandi series DNA on iPlayer (hat-tip AndyJS for pointing it out) - really moving, multi-layered series (police drama on child abuction, with guest participation by Charlotte Rampling), with a very touching final installment. Recommended if you don't mind subtitltes (Danish/Polish, with smatterings with English and French) - it's by one of the authors of The Killing and The Bridge, though less gory and closer to everyday dilemmas. The first installment is over-melodramatic, but after that it just gets better and better.
Started on Mangrove this evening. Excellent. Very humbling and sobering also esp. when anyone should choose to query why we should as a society go out of our way to be aware of the history of black people in this country.
Which is from time to time a good thing but by all means stick to Friends as it's much the easier watch if that's your thing.1 -
Timmy on twitter wetting his pants about Sir Keir being challenged by Ian Lavery!1
-
Who is the foremost Naval power in Europe now? It should never have stopped being us really. But I am pleased something's being done.CarlottaVance said:The state of replies to this:
https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1329421425208389635?s=200 -
I was surprised that it seems to be Danish police policy to allow lone cops to attend potential high risk situations.IanB2 said:
Went off the rails at the end, though, with a storyline that became less and less credible. And that policewoman who kept taking massive blows to the head and then reappearing in the next scene with just a small plaster. Still, I always thought nuns were evil.NickPalmer said:Just finished off the 8-part Scandi series DNA on iPlayer (hat-tip AndyJS for pointing it out) - really moving, multi-layered series (police drama on child abuction, with guest participation by Charlotte Rampling), with a very touching final installment. Recommended if you don't mind subtitltes (Danish/Polish, with smatterings with English and French) - it's by one of the authors of The Killing and The Bridge, though less gory and closer to everyday dilemmas. The first installment is over-melodramatic, but after that it just gets better and better.
That chubby lad with the beard must be the hardest working bloke in Scandi show business.0 -
The bed-wetters on here will respond in 3... 2... 1...Richard_Nabavi said:0 -
How come, when Trump insulted E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E during the 2016 primaries and general, that didn't "enable" his opponents?isam said:
He wasn’t able to stand again. And his smart arse piss takes out of Trump helped enable Trump. As Cameron’s smart arse piss takes out of Leave enabled Leavercs1000 said:
Trump won in 2016 because he wasn't Hillary.isam said:Watching Obama last night on the BBC (free half hour of advertising for his book you might say) he did come across so well. Cameron did too in his time, but I think why these smooth types end up leaving chaos behind is their inability to resist sniping at their more explosive rivals (Trump/Farage/Leave) whilst selling themselves as moderate and reasonable. It pushes people towards the extremes, and I think Starmer is making the same error with Corbyn. It is for the likes of Farage/Trump and Jez to purge, not moderate centrist types
Biden won in 2020 because he wasn't Trump.
In 2016, had he been able to stand again, I think Obama would have trounced Trump.
Politicians who call for unity & moderation don’t do so well when they go with personal attacks0 -
This constant upping of the ante is making me think of the South Sea Bubble for some reason, in at some point people will snap awake.FrancisUrquhart said:A 1 million a day, sounds like Boris has been making up targets again...
0 -
Trouble is that this government rode to power on hope-over-experience, freedom-over-rules, sentiment-over-expertise, right now-over-right time, Spectator-over-speccy swots.dixiedean said:
But Christmas.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, precisely. The imminent prospect of vaccines being widely available - looking to be effective, safe, and ready to be produced in huge quantities - is a very strong argument for hunkering down over the next few months. The end is now very clearly in sight; a case deferred is now clearly a case that doesn't have to happen, a death postponed is a life saved. There was an argument for saying 'we just have to live with this and we're all going to be exposed to it in the end' if no vaccine was coming soon, but that argument no longer applies.Philip_Thompson said:We are literally weeks away from vaccinations starting and some are losing their minds like this is never going to end so let's go crazy.
It is insane.
And having smashed open the lamp to let the genie out, they are in the tricky situation of saying "erm, it's trickier than that lads..."0 -
I don't think it will happen, but that a lot of americans in high positions would clearly like it to happen is concern enough.Anabobazina said:
I see we are back to coup d'etat hour on PB. The wine has sunk in, the fantastical posts are leaking through the mist.MikeL said:
Anything is possible.rottenborough said:
One of those summoned said on Tuesday that the result would not be changed. Now he is not responding to requests for comment.Alistair said:Look, I'm not saying the situation is serious but the NY Times couldn't even do a "both sides" headline
https://twitter.com/skantrow/status/1329531142186340357?s=19
Hope that doesn't mean he's busy changing his mind.
I think there has been an enormous amount of complacency - because what Trump is trying to do is so outlandish everyone just assumes it couldn't possibly happen.
Well I think it's clear now that they are going to play every conceivable trick in the book - Republican canvassers won't certify results, Republican legislatures will appoint Trump electors - they will literally go for anything.
I fully accept that most people think they won't succeed and that may well be correct - but I wouldn't put money on it - this is the USA with a highly politicised Judiciary - absolutely anything could happen.
To be clear: Ain't gonna happen.0 -
I can't think of a more stupid view than that it is idiotic even to entertain the idea that leaders like Obama, Cameron and Blair may have left a toxic legacy so I'm afraid you have me beat.Roy_G_Biv said:
Ah, the old "you won't agree with my idiotic views, so I'll make up another idiotic view and assign it to you" defence.williamglenn said:
Apologies, America was clearly an unmitigated force for good and a shining city upon a hill until Trump arrived and spoilt everything...Roy_G_Biv said:
In terms of fascist marches and churn of White House staff and acolytes' criminal convictions and social media invective and grossly mismanaged health crises and the gutting of international institutions and allies insulted and trade wars and government shutdowns and just the whole numbing shitness of the Loser-in-Chief failing to recognise that his own people have booted him so heartily from office.... but never mind all that. Foreign events "linked to US policy". Right. [Pats williamglenn on the head]williamglenn said:
In terms of foreign events linked to US policy, Obama's term was objectively more chaotic than Trump's.Roy_G_Biv said:
Oooooo. Chaos.isam said:
I was thinking of thiswilliamglenn said:
Was this a wise thing to do?Roy_G_Biv said:
What chaos did Obama leave behind?isam said:Watching Obama last night on the BBC (free half hour of advertising for his book you might say) he did come across so well. Cameron and Blair did too in their time, but I think why these smooth types end up leaving chaos behind is their inability to resist sniping at their more explosive rivals (Trump/Farage/Leave) whilst selling themselves as moderate and reasonable. It pushes people towards the extremes, and I think Starmer is making the same error with Corbyn. It is for the likes of Farage/Trump and Jez to purge, not moderate centrist types
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHckZCxdRkA
https://youtu.be/wC1NGWM8gP8
Sometimes known as the strawman fallacy, but I prefer to think of it as the I-can-think-of-more-stupid-ideas-than-you gambit. Well done, you. [A second pat on the head]0 -
Well there's that whole thing about if you forget history you are condemned to repeat it but this is in living memory and is imo a hugely important contributing factor of where we are today with race in the UK.Luckyguy1983 said:
I'm not into Friends, though I agree, many find it to be great entertainment. I am not having a go at you personally, I was just mulling this topic earlier having scanned through catch up looking for stuff to watch. We praise 'moving' TV programmes, but where are they moving us from and to? If they're moving us from being in a good mood to being in a depressed mood, I question their value. The way you describe the TV show you've watched sounds like the 'reading an improving book' of the Victorian era. An act of self-flagellation that appears to have little value outside being able to tell people you've endured it (which you have duly done).TOPPING said:
It was a very uncomfortable experience.Luckyguy1983 said:
Do you like being humbled and sobered?TOPPING said:
Agree. You think it makes no sense then it all comes together very elegantly and poignantly.NickPalmer said:Just finished off the 8-part Scandi series DNA on iPlayer (hat-tip AndyJS for pointing it out) - really moving, multi-layered series (police drama on child abuction, with guest participation by Charlotte Rampling), with a very touching final installment. Recommended if you don't mind subtitltes (Danish/Polish, with smatterings with English and French) - it's by one of the authors of The Killing and The Bridge, though less gory and closer to everyday dilemmas. The first installment is over-melodramatic, but after that it just gets better and better.
Started on Mangrove this evening. Excellent. Very humbling and sobering also esp. when anyone should choose to query why we should as a society go out of our way to be aware of the history of black people in this country.
Which is from time to time a good thing but by all means stick to Friends as it's much the easier watch if that's your thing.
If for example you were born in 1983 (just a guess) then this was happening only a decade prior to your birth so very much relevant to today.0 -
It says that the withdrawal of the whip was a consequence of the suspension (and therefore wah wah it's unfair it is not restored). Seems to me those things need not be directly related, in that the whip can be withdrawn from someone without suspending them from the party, and Starmer could do it before a suspension occurred I should think.CarlottaVance said:0 -
Tbf, from the video, Pelosi could step aside and allow Biden to be Speaker (Speaker doesn't have to be an elected representative).MikeL said:
Yes, I saw the video posted on here last night.Pulpstar said:
I'm levelled off now in the main presidential market on Betfair, so this isn't my pocket talking but Pelosi can put a stone cold stop to all this.MikeL said:
Anything is possible.rottenborough said:
One of those summoned said on Tuesday that the result would not be changed. Now he is not responding to requests for comment.Alistair said:Look, I'm not saying the situation is serious but the NY Times couldn't even do a "both sides" headline
https://twitter.com/skantrow/status/1329531142186340357?s=19
Hope that doesn't mean he's busy changing his mind.
I think there has been an enormous amount of complacency - because what Trump is trying to do is so outlandish everyone just assumes it couldn't possibly happen.
Well I think it's clear now that they are going to play every conceivable trick in the book - Republican canvassers won't certify results, Republican legislatures will appoint Trump electors - they will literally go for anything.
I fully accept that most people think they won't succeed and that may well be correct - but I wouldn't put money on it - this is the USA with a highly politicised Judiciary - absolutely anything could happen.
One Dem congressman, one Dem senator file an objection at the Electoral Count when Michigan's subverted GOP electors are read out. Electoral Count pauses,house doesn't reach a decision till 20th January. By operation of law Trump ceases his presidency on the 20th January and acting then President Pelosi directs the national guard to arrest him from the White House. The Democrats may well fuck this particular trick up - they're as incompetent sometimes as the GOP is outright evil.
And worth noting that under the scenario required to stop Trump, it would be Pelosi and not Biden who would become President.
How would Betfair then settle their President market? Void it?1 -
Carter concededwilliamglenn said:
Apologies, America was clearly an unmitigated force for good and a shining city upon a hill until Trump arrived and spoilt everything...Roy_G_Biv said:
In terms of fascist marches and churn of White House staff and acolytes' criminal convictions and social media invective and grossly mismanaged health crises and the gutting of international institutions and allies insulted and trade wars and government shutdowns and just the whole numbing shitness of the Loser-in-Chief failing to recognise that his own people have booted him so heartily from office.... but never mind all that. Foreign events "linked to US policy". Right. [Pats williamglenn on the head]williamglenn said:
In terms of foreign events linked to US policy, Obama's term was objectively more chaotic than Trump's.Roy_G_Biv said:
Oooooo. Chaos.isam said:
I was thinking of thiswilliamglenn said:
Was this a wise thing to do?Roy_G_Biv said:
What chaos did Obama leave behind?isam said:Watching Obama last night on the BBC (free half hour of advertising for his book you might say) he did come across so well. Cameron and Blair did too in their time, but I think why these smooth types end up leaving chaos behind is their inability to resist sniping at their more explosive rivals (Trump/Farage/Leave) whilst selling themselves as moderate and reasonable. It pushes people towards the extremes, and I think Starmer is making the same error with Corbyn. It is for the likes of Farage/Trump and Jez to purge, not moderate centrist types
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHckZCxdRkA
https://youtu.be/wC1NGWM8gP8
Mondale conceded
Dukakis conceded
Bush Snr conceded
Dole conceded
Gore conceded
Kerry conceded
McCain conceded
Romney conceded
Hillary conceded
Dickhead Donald has NOT conceded0 -
On the other hand I think you'd find it extremely hard to name a leader who didn't leave a toxic legacy by that standard. Sir Alec Douglas-Home is the only one who immediately occurs to me as a possibility, and I'm not sure it's particularly to his credit.williamglenn said:
I can't think of a more stupid view than that it is idiotic even to entertain the idea that leaders like Obama, Cameron and Blair may have left a toxic legacy so I'm afraid you have me beat.0 -
What odds would you put on it happening?kle4 said:
I don't think it will happen, but that a lot of americans in high positions would clearly like it to happen is concern enough.Anabobazina said:
I see we are back to coup d'etat hour on PB. The wine has sunk in, the fantastical posts are leaking through the mist.MikeL said:
Anything is possible.rottenborough said:
One of those summoned said on Tuesday that the result would not be changed. Now he is not responding to requests for comment.Alistair said:Look, I'm not saying the situation is serious but the NY Times couldn't even do a "both sides" headline
https://twitter.com/skantrow/status/1329531142186340357?s=19
Hope that doesn't mean he's busy changing his mind.
I think there has been an enormous amount of complacency - because what Trump is trying to do is so outlandish everyone just assumes it couldn't possibly happen.
Well I think it's clear now that they are going to play every conceivable trick in the book - Republican canvassers won't certify results, Republican legislatures will appoint Trump electors - they will literally go for anything.
I fully accept that most people think they won't succeed and that may well be correct - but I wouldn't put money on it - this is the USA with a highly politicised Judiciary - absolutely anything could happen.
To be clear: Ain't gonna happen.0 -
Does that 1 in the 1-32 include the win that got overturned at a higher court, or did he actually win another one?Richard_Nabavi said:1 -
Spotted him early on as a wrong 'un.Theuniondivvie said:
I was surprised that it seems to be Danish police policy to allow lone cops to attend potential high risk situations.IanB2 said:
Went off the rails at the end, though, with a storyline that became less and less credible. And that policewoman who kept taking massive blows to the head and then reappearing in the next scene with just a small plaster. Still, I always thought nuns were evil.NickPalmer said:Just finished off the 8-part Scandi series DNA on iPlayer (hat-tip AndyJS for pointing it out) - really moving, multi-layered series (police drama on child abuction, with guest participation by Charlotte Rampling), with a very touching final installment. Recommended if you don't mind subtitltes (Danish/Polish, with smatterings with English and French) - it's by one of the authors of The Killing and The Bridge, though less gory and closer to everyday dilemmas. The first installment is over-melodramatic, but after that it just gets better and better.
That chubby lad with the beard must be the hardest working bloke in Scandi show business.0 -
I think it's the one which was overturned, in PA.kle4 said:
Does that 1 in the 1-32 include the win that got overturned at a higher court, or did he actually win another one?Richard_Nabavi said:1 -
If those 14 people can't accept that what Corbyn did was wrong and that antisemitism is not exaggerated and is a real problem in the party then perhaps Starmer should respond by suspending from the party another 14 people who reject the EHRC conclusions.kle4 said:
It says that the withdrawal of the whip was a consequence of the suspension (and therefore wah wah it's unfair it is not restored). Seems to me those things need not be directly related, in that the whip can be withdrawn from someone without suspending them from the party, and Starmer could do it before a suspension occurred I should think.CarlottaVance said:
Excise the cancer completely.2 -
That correspondents dinner was tem trying to goad him into running in 2012. A full on Racist Birther Trump vs Obama would have been a massacre.rcs1000 said:
Trump won in 2016 because he wasn't Hillary.isam said:Watching Obama last night on the BBC (free half hour of advertising for his book you might say) he did come across so well. Cameron did too in his time, but I think why these smooth types end up leaving chaos behind is their inability to resist sniping at their more explosive rivals (Trump/Farage/Leave) whilst selling themselves as moderate and reasonable. It pushes people towards the extremes, and I think Starmer is making the same error with Corbyn. It is for the likes of Farage/Trump and Jez to purge, not moderate centrist types
Biden won in 2020 because he wasn't Trump.
In 2016, had he been able to stand again, I think Obama would have trounced Trump.0 -
I lack the information to put a number on it, but I'd assume very low indeed. What does that have to do with the mere fact various people desire it is a big concern? People who want to do that sort of thing will also do a lot of other really awful stuff they are able to achieve.Anabobazina said:
What odds would you put on it happening?kle4 said:
I don't think it will happen, but that a lot of americans in high positions would clearly like it to happen is concern enough.Anabobazina said:
I see we are back to coup d'etat hour on PB. The wine has sunk in, the fantastical posts are leaking through the mist.MikeL said:
Anything is possible.rottenborough said:
One of those summoned said on Tuesday that the result would not be changed. Now he is not responding to requests for comment.Alistair said:Look, I'm not saying the situation is serious but the NY Times couldn't even do a "both sides" headline
https://twitter.com/skantrow/status/1329531142186340357?s=19
Hope that doesn't mean he's busy changing his mind.
I think there has been an enormous amount of complacency - because what Trump is trying to do is so outlandish everyone just assumes it couldn't possibly happen.
Well I think it's clear now that they are going to play every conceivable trick in the book - Republican canvassers won't certify results, Republican legislatures will appoint Trump electors - they will literally go for anything.
I fully accept that most people think they won't succeed and that may well be correct - but I wouldn't put money on it - this is the USA with a highly politicised Judiciary - absolutely anything could happen.
To be clear: Ain't gonna happen.0 -
Agreed. The Trumptonite GOP are an absolute disgrace. I would have hoped that was implicit.Philip_Thompson said:
It certainly shouldn't, but lets also be clear: They are trying - and that shouldn't happen.Anabobazina said:
I see we are back to coup d'etat hour on PB. The wine has sunk in, the fantastical posts are leaking through the mist.MikeL said:
Anything is possible.rottenborough said:
One of those summoned said on Tuesday that the result would not be changed. Now he is not responding to requests for comment.Alistair said:Look, I'm not saying the situation is serious but the NY Times couldn't even do a "both sides" headline
https://twitter.com/skantrow/status/1329531142186340357?s=19
Hope that doesn't mean he's busy changing his mind.
I think there has been an enormous amount of complacency - because what Trump is trying to do is so outlandish everyone just assumes it couldn't possibly happen.
Well I think it's clear now that they are going to play every conceivable trick in the book - Republican canvassers won't certify results, Republican legislatures will appoint Trump electors - they will literally go for anything.
I fully accept that most people think they won't succeed and that may well be correct - but I wouldn't put money on it - this is the USA with a highly politicised Judiciary - absolutely anything could happen.
To be clear: Ain't gonna happen.0 -
I read McConnell tried to equate the resistance to Trump over the last 4 years as amounting to the same thing as what Trump is doing now, as if Hillary conceding never happened.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Carter concededwilliamglenn said:
Apologies, America was clearly an unmitigated force for good and a shining city upon a hill until Trump arrived and spoilt everything...Roy_G_Biv said:
In terms of fascist marches and churn of White House staff and acolytes' criminal convictions and social media invective and grossly mismanaged health crises and the gutting of international institutions and allies insulted and trade wars and government shutdowns and just the whole numbing shitness of the Loser-in-Chief failing to recognise that his own people have booted him so heartily from office.... but never mind all that. Foreign events "linked to US policy". Right. [Pats williamglenn on the head]williamglenn said:
In terms of foreign events linked to US policy, Obama's term was objectively more chaotic than Trump's.Roy_G_Biv said:
Oooooo. Chaos.isam said:
I was thinking of thiswilliamglenn said:
Was this a wise thing to do?Roy_G_Biv said:
What chaos did Obama leave behind?isam said:Watching Obama last night on the BBC (free half hour of advertising for his book you might say) he did come across so well. Cameron and Blair did too in their time, but I think why these smooth types end up leaving chaos behind is their inability to resist sniping at their more explosive rivals (Trump/Farage/Leave) whilst selling themselves as moderate and reasonable. It pushes people towards the extremes, and I think Starmer is making the same error with Corbyn. It is for the likes of Farage/Trump and Jez to purge, not moderate centrist types
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHckZCxdRkA
https://youtu.be/wC1NGWM8gP8
Mondale conceded
Dukakis conceded
Bush Snr conceded
Dole conceded
Gore conceded
Kerry conceded
McCain conceded
Romney conceded
Hillary conceded
Dickhead Donald has NOT conceded0 -
According to Sky News Corbyn's loss of whip will be reviewed in 3 months presumably by KierPhilip_Thompson said:
If those 14 people can't accept that what Corbyn did was wrong and that antisemitism is not exaggerated and is a real problem in the party then perhaps Starmer should respond by suspending from the party another 14 people who reject the EHRC conclusions.kle4 said:
It says that the withdrawal of the whip was a consequence of the suspension (and therefore wah wah it's unfair it is not restored). Seems to me those things need not be directly related, in that the whip can be withdrawn from someone without suspending them from the party, and Starmer could do it before a suspension occurred I should think.CarlottaVance said:
Excise the cancer completely.0 -
Oh they think everything violates their right to bear arms. Given how wide ranging that right appears to be did the Founding Fathers all walk around with 15 muskets poking out of their codpieces at all times or something?Nigelb said:0 -
Oh, absolutely agreed. I didn't mean to even vaguely imply otherwise. See my response to Philip above.kle4 said:
I lack the information to put a number on it, but I'd assume very low indeed. What does that have to do with the mere fact various people desire it is a big concern? People who want to do that sort of thing will also do a lot of other really awful stuff they are able to achieve.Anabobazina said:
What odds would you put on it happening?kle4 said:
I don't think it will happen, but that a lot of americans in high positions would clearly like it to happen is concern enough.Anabobazina said:
I see we are back to coup d'etat hour on PB. The wine has sunk in, the fantastical posts are leaking through the mist.MikeL said:
Anything is possible.rottenborough said:
One of those summoned said on Tuesday that the result would not be changed. Now he is not responding to requests for comment.Alistair said:Look, I'm not saying the situation is serious but the NY Times couldn't even do a "both sides" headline
https://twitter.com/skantrow/status/1329531142186340357?s=19
Hope that doesn't mean he's busy changing his mind.
I think there has been an enormous amount of complacency - because what Trump is trying to do is so outlandish everyone just assumes it couldn't possibly happen.
Well I think it's clear now that they are going to play every conceivable trick in the book - Republican canvassers won't certify results, Republican legislatures will appoint Trump electors - they will literally go for anything.
I fully accept that most people think they won't succeed and that may well be correct - but I wouldn't put money on it - this is the USA with a highly politicised Judiciary - absolutely anything could happen.
To be clear: Ain't gonna happen.0 -
£10,000 buys you £500? Steamrollers and pennies. And then there's the intractable paradox that the funds I would consider punting on a Biden win are tied up pending a payout on a Biden win.Richard_Nabavi said:0 -
He left a poisonous legacy of me calling him Alec Douglas-HOME in a Zoom quiz and being mockingly reminded it was HUME.Richard_Nabavi said:
On the other hand I think you'd find it extremely hard to name a leader who didn't leave a toxic legacy by that standard. Sir Alec Douglas-Home is the only one who immediately occurs to me as a possibility, and I'm not sure it's particularly to his credit.williamglenn said:
I can't think of a more stupid view than that it is idiotic even to entertain the idea that leaders like Obama, Cameron and Blair may have left a toxic legacy so I'm afraid you have me beat.
2 -
What a total and utter waste of money...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/13245357/covid-marshals-lockdown-flouters-yellow-card-bonkers/0 -
That means certification is tomorrow IIRC.Richard_Nabavi said:0 -
I think you have yourself beat.williamglenn said:
I can't think of a more stupid view than that it is idiotic even to entertain the idea that leaders like Obama, Cameron and Blair may have left a toxic legacy so I'm afraid you have me beat.Roy_G_Biv said:
Ah, the old "you won't agree with my idiotic views, so I'll make up another idiotic view and assign it to you" defence.williamglenn said:
Apologies, America was clearly an unmitigated force for good and a shining city upon a hill until Trump arrived and spoilt everything...Roy_G_Biv said:
In terms of fascist marches and churn of White House staff and acolytes' criminal convictions and social media invective and grossly mismanaged health crises and the gutting of international institutions and allies insulted and trade wars and government shutdowns and just the whole numbing shitness of the Loser-in-Chief failing to recognise that his own people have booted him so heartily from office.... but never mind all that. Foreign events "linked to US policy". Right. [Pats williamglenn on the head]williamglenn said:
In terms of foreign events linked to US policy, Obama's term was objectively more chaotic than Trump's.Roy_G_Biv said:
Oooooo. Chaos.isam said:
I was thinking of thiswilliamglenn said:
Was this a wise thing to do?Roy_G_Biv said:
What chaos did Obama leave behind?isam said:Watching Obama last night on the BBC (free half hour of advertising for his book you might say) he did come across so well. Cameron and Blair did too in their time, but I think why these smooth types end up leaving chaos behind is their inability to resist sniping at their more explosive rivals (Trump/Farage/Leave) whilst selling themselves as moderate and reasonable. It pushes people towards the extremes, and I think Starmer is making the same error with Corbyn. It is for the likes of Farage/Trump and Jez to purge, not moderate centrist types
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHckZCxdRkA
https://youtu.be/wC1NGWM8gP8
Sometimes known as the strawman fallacy, but I prefer to think of it as the I-can-think-of-more-stupid-ideas-than-you gambit. Well done, you. [A second pat on the head]
All I asked was what chaos. I was told "Trump" which was preposterous. Then you chipped in to tell me that it was "objectively" more chaotic than Trump's, in a simultaneously narrow and yet ill-defined way (really, god alive, what were you thinking with "Foreign events linked to US policy"?).
So in a way you were sort of getting near an answer, in a hand-wavy kind of way.. something something events.. but trying to pretend that you can help your argument by holding up Donald Trump as a comparator in the good-governance stakes? You might as well have donned a big red clown nose and a tutu.0 -
Keir.londonpubman said:
According to Sky News Corbyn's loss of whip will be reviewed in 3 months presumably by KierPhilip_Thompson said:
If those 14 people can't accept that what Corbyn did was wrong and that antisemitism is not exaggerated and is a real problem in the party then perhaps Starmer should respond by suspending from the party another 14 people who reject the EHRC conclusions.kle4 said:
It says that the withdrawal of the whip was a consequence of the suspension (and therefore wah wah it's unfair it is not restored). Seems to me those things need not be directly related, in that the whip can be withdrawn from someone without suspending them from the party, and Starmer could do it before a suspension occurred I should think.CarlottaVance said:
Excise the cancer completely.
K-E-I-R
K
E
I
R
Another PBer who cannot spell the Loto's name!
0 -
Yay for my £2.50 winnings on Georgia.4
-
Yep.Alistair said:That means certification is tomorrow IIRC.
0 -
I think if something makes you reflect on something, on yourself even, then even if it is depressing then it clearly has value. We might need that sometimes.Luckyguy1983 said:
I'm not into Friends, though I agree, many find it to be great entertainment. I am not having a go at you personally, I was just mulling this topic earlier having scanned through catch up looking for stuff to watch. We praise 'moving' TV programmes, but where are they moving us from and to? If they're moving us from being in a good mood to being in a depressed mood, I question their value. The way you describe the TV show you've watched sounds like the 'reading an improving book' of the Victorian era. An act of self-flagellation that appears to have little value outside being able to tell people you've endured it (which you have duly done).TOPPING said:
It was a very uncomfortable experience.Luckyguy1983 said:
Do you like being humbled and sobered?TOPPING said:
Agree. You think it makes no sense then it all comes together very elegantly and poignantly.NickPalmer said:Just finished off the 8-part Scandi series DNA on iPlayer (hat-tip AndyJS for pointing it out) - really moving, multi-layered series (police drama on child abuction, with guest participation by Charlotte Rampling), with a very touching final installment. Recommended if you don't mind subtitltes (Danish/Polish, with smatterings with English and French) - it's by one of the authors of The Killing and The Bridge, though less gory and closer to everyday dilemmas. The first installment is over-melodramatic, but after that it just gets better and better.
Started on Mangrove this evening. Excellent. Very humbling and sobering also esp. when anyone should choose to query why we should as a society go out of our way to be aware of the history of black people in this country.
Which is from time to time a good thing but by all means stick to Friends as it's much the easier watch if that's your thing.
But some things can be a kind of depression porn, wallowing in awfulness without actually saying much (quite a bit of modern fantasy literature falls into that trap), or saying something really insipid, on the misunderstanding that because something is sad, it is therefore deep.
I don't generally like depressing stuff, but I still found 12 years a slave to be a very worthwhile film to watch (though I did have to skip to the 'happy' end so I could get through the rough parts).0 -
Kier is the hier to Bliar?Anabobazina said:
Keir.londonpubman said:
According to Sky News Corbyn's loss of whip will be reviewed in 3 months presumably by KierPhilip_Thompson said:
If those 14 people can't accept that what Corbyn did was wrong and that antisemitism is not exaggerated and is a real problem in the party then perhaps Starmer should respond by suspending from the party another 14 people who reject the EHRC conclusions.kle4 said:
It says that the withdrawal of the whip was a consequence of the suspension (and therefore wah wah it's unfair it is not restored). Seems to me those things need not be directly related, in that the whip can be withdrawn from someone without suspending them from the party, and Starmer could do it before a suspension occurred I should think.CarlottaVance said:
Excise the cancer completely.
K-E-I-R
K
E
I
R
Another PBer who cannot spell the Loto's name!2 -
The problem with his analysis, even if it stands up on the legal detail (he sounded pretty knowledgeable and authoritative) is that if the supreme court deliberately dont follow the law and support the Presidents fiction, then even if congress should be sovereign on this, it will come down to a power struggle, not a legal one. The existing President and Supreme Court vs Congress, who knows which way the Army and various state forces break in that scenario, civil war would certainly be a possibility, but I think most likely they would follow the President and SC.Benpointer said:
Tbf, from the video, Pelosi could step aside and allow Biden to be Speaker (Speaker doesn't have to be an elected representative).MikeL said:
Yes, I saw the video posted on here last night.Pulpstar said:
I'm levelled off now in the main presidential market on Betfair, so this isn't my pocket talking but Pelosi can put a stone cold stop to all this.MikeL said:
Anything is possible.rottenborough said:
One of those summoned said on Tuesday that the result would not be changed. Now he is not responding to requests for comment.Alistair said:Look, I'm not saying the situation is serious but the NY Times couldn't even do a "both sides" headline
https://twitter.com/skantrow/status/1329531142186340357?s=19
Hope that doesn't mean he's busy changing his mind.
I think there has been an enormous amount of complacency - because what Trump is trying to do is so outlandish everyone just assumes it couldn't possibly happen.
Well I think it's clear now that they are going to play every conceivable trick in the book - Republican canvassers won't certify results, Republican legislatures will appoint Trump electors - they will literally go for anything.
I fully accept that most people think they won't succeed and that may well be correct - but I wouldn't put money on it - this is the USA with a highly politicised Judiciary - absolutely anything could happen.
One Dem congressman, one Dem senator file an objection at the Electoral Count when Michigan's subverted GOP electors are read out. Electoral Count pauses,house doesn't reach a decision till 20th January. By operation of law Trump ceases his presidency on the 20th January and acting then President Pelosi directs the national guard to arrest him from the White House. The Democrats may well fuck this particular trick up - they're as incompetent sometimes as the GOP is outright evil.
And worth noting that under the scenario required to stop Trump, it would be Pelosi and not Biden who would become President.
How would Betfair then settle their President market? Void it?
The lower courts rulings and lack of any substance they have been able to show so far obviously make the fiction much harder for the SC judges to buy, but if they do, I doubt it will end up with President Pelosi in control of real power.
0 -
I got an absolute bollocking when I used whom rather than who, PB is as always, consistentAnabobazina said:
Keir.londonpubman said:
According to Sky News Corbyn's loss of whip will be reviewed in 3 months presumably by KierPhilip_Thompson said:
If those 14 people can't accept that what Corbyn did was wrong and that antisemitism is not exaggerated and is a real problem in the party then perhaps Starmer should respond by suspending from the party another 14 people who reject the EHRC conclusions.kle4 said:
It says that the withdrawal of the whip was a consequence of the suspension (and therefore wah wah it's unfair it is not restored). Seems to me those things need not be directly related, in that the whip can be withdrawn from someone without suspending them from the party, and Starmer could do it before a suspension occurred I should think.CarlottaVance said:
Excise the cancer completely.
K-E-I-R
K
E
I
R
Another PBer who cannot spell the Loto's name!2 -
They cannot help themselves either, having to claim he won by a landslide, not just that he won. I'd like to think I had enough self respect to never work for someone who made me act like that, but I guess you never know until you face it.Alistair said:
0 -
Entirely consistent. PBers, being educated and all that, know that it's I before E except after C. It's hardly PB's fault that the leader of the opposition can't spell his own name.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I got an absolute bollocking when I used whom rather than who, PB is as always, consistent7 -
Corbyn is currently in his 'pretend I don't think it was exaggerated' phase, but he always returns to form later. Which is presumably why Starmer wants to keep an eye on what he says over the next few months.Philip_Thompson said:
If those 14 people can't accept that what Corbyn did was wrong and that antisemitism is not exaggerated and is a real problem in the party then perhaps Starmer should respond by suspending from the party another 14 people who reject the EHRC conclusions.kle4 said:
It says that the withdrawal of the whip was a consequence of the suspension (and therefore wah wah it's unfair it is not restored). Seems to me those things need not be directly related, in that the whip can be withdrawn from someone without suspending them from the party, and Starmer could do it before a suspension occurred I should think.CarlottaVance said:
Excise the cancer completely.0 -
The original point wasn’t that they left a toxic legacy, it was that by pretending to be moderate, neutral, all round good guys but partaking in petty name calling squabbles with explosive, divisive characters they helped enable them.Richard_Nabavi said:
On the other hand I think you'd find it extremely hard to name a leader who didn't leave a toxic legacy by that standard. Sir Alec Douglas-Home is the only one who immediately occurs to me as a possibility, and I'm not sure it's particularly to his credit.williamglenn said:
I can't think of a more stupid view than that it is idiotic even to entertain the idea that leaders like Obama, Cameron and Blair may have left a toxic legacy so I'm afraid you have me beat.0 -
Kier Is Exactly Right is how I remember it. Or (hat tip Mr Meeks) i before e, except after Corbyn.Roy_G_Biv said:
Kier is the hier to Bliar?Anabobazina said:
Keir.londonpubman said:
According to Sky News Corbyn's loss of whip will be reviewed in 3 months presumably by KierPhilip_Thompson said:
If those 14 people can't accept that what Corbyn did was wrong and that antisemitism is not exaggerated and is a real problem in the party then perhaps Starmer should respond by suspending from the party another 14 people who reject the EHRC conclusions.kle4 said:
It says that the withdrawal of the whip was a consequence of the suspension (and therefore wah wah it's unfair it is not restored). Seems to me those things need not be directly related, in that the whip can be withdrawn from someone without suspending them from the party, and Starmer could do it before a suspension occurred I should think.CarlottaVance said:
Excise the cancer completely.
K-E-I-R
K
E
I
R
Another PBer who cannot spell the Loto's name!0 -
Whom on earth did that?CorrectHorseBattery said:
I got an absolute bollocking when I used whom rather than who, PB is as always, consistentAnabobazina said:
Keir.londonpubman said:
According to Sky News Corbyn's loss of whip will be reviewed in 3 months presumably by KierPhilip_Thompson said:
If those 14 people can't accept that what Corbyn did was wrong and that antisemitism is not exaggerated and is a real problem in the party then perhaps Starmer should respond by suspending from the party another 14 people who reject the EHRC conclusions.kle4 said:
It says that the withdrawal of the whip was a consequence of the suspension (and therefore wah wah it's unfair it is not restored). Seems to me those things need not be directly related, in that the whip can be withdrawn from someone without suspending them from the party, and Starmer could do it before a suspension occurred I should think.CarlottaVance said:
Excise the cancer completely.
K-E-I-R
K
E
I
R
Another PBer who cannot spell the Loto's name!1 -
Do you not think there are better things to be spending public money on?Luckyguy1983 said:
Who is the foremost Naval power in Europe now? It should never have stopped being us really. But I am pleased something's being done.CarlottaVance said:The state of replies to this:
https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1329421425208389635?s=20
Like, perhaps, pandemic defence and reviving a hospitality sector that is critical to the British way of life?0 -
I love that rule. Weirdly scientific.Richard_Nabavi said:
Entirely consistent. PBers, being educated and all that, know that it's I before E except after C. It's hardly PB's fault that the leader of the opposition can't spell his own name.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I got an absolute bollocking when I used whom rather than who, PB is as always, consistent5 -
And as the video points out if it gets to that point, there's no point examining things in terms of legal analysis.noneoftheabove said:
The problem with his analysis, even if it stands up on the legal detail (he sounded pretty knowledgeable and authoritative) is that if the supreme court deliberately dont follow the law and support the Presidents fiction, then even if congress should be sovereign on this, it will come down to a power struggle, not a legal one. The existing President and Supreme Court vs Congress, who knows which way the Army and various state forces break in that scenario, civil war would certainly be a possibility, but I think most likely they would follow the President and SC.Benpointer said:
Tbf, from the video, Pelosi could step aside and allow Biden to be Speaker (Speaker doesn't have to be an elected representative).MikeL said:
Yes, I saw the video posted on here last night.Pulpstar said:
I'm levelled off now in the main presidential market on Betfair, so this isn't my pocket talking but Pelosi can put a stone cold stop to all this.MikeL said:
Anything is possible.rottenborough said:
One of those summoned said on Tuesday that the result would not be changed. Now he is not responding to requests for comment.Alistair said:Look, I'm not saying the situation is serious but the NY Times couldn't even do a "both sides" headline
https://twitter.com/skantrow/status/1329531142186340357?s=19
Hope that doesn't mean he's busy changing his mind.
I think there has been an enormous amount of complacency - because what Trump is trying to do is so outlandish everyone just assumes it couldn't possibly happen.
Well I think it's clear now that they are going to play every conceivable trick in the book - Republican canvassers won't certify results, Republican legislatures will appoint Trump electors - they will literally go for anything.
I fully accept that most people think they won't succeed and that may well be correct - but I wouldn't put money on it - this is the USA with a highly politicised Judiciary - absolutely anything could happen.
One Dem congressman, one Dem senator file an objection at the Electoral Count when Michigan's subverted GOP electors are read out. Electoral Count pauses,house doesn't reach a decision till 20th January. By operation of law Trump ceases his presidency on the 20th January and acting then President Pelosi directs the national guard to arrest him from the White House. The Democrats may well fuck this particular trick up - they're as incompetent sometimes as the GOP is outright evil.
And worth noting that under the scenario required to stop Trump, it would be Pelosi and not Biden who would become President.
How would Betfair then settle their President market? Void it?
The lower courts rulings and lack of any substance they have been able to show so far obviously make the fiction much harder for the SC judges to buy, but if they do, I doubt it will end up with President Pelosi in control of real power.
More importantly the market should settle for Biden as he clearly has the most projected electoral votes. Things don't reach the 12th amendment.0 -
I wouldn't have chosen the word chaos to begin with but that's the reason I went for the example of foreign policy where Obama's record was undoubtedly chequered. What happened in the last four years to compete with the Libyan intervention, mishandling of Syria or Russia's annexation of Crimea? The world was in a more chaotic state in 2016 than in 2008 and some of that is attributable to the Obama administration.Roy_G_Biv said:
I think you have yourself beat.williamglenn said:
I can't think of a more stupid view than that it is idiotic even to entertain the idea that leaders like Obama, Cameron and Blair may have left a toxic legacy so I'm afraid you have me beat.Roy_G_Biv said:
Ah, the old "you won't agree with my idiotic views, so I'll make up another idiotic view and assign it to you" defence.williamglenn said:
Apologies, America was clearly an unmitigated force for good and a shining city upon a hill until Trump arrived and spoilt everything...Roy_G_Biv said:
In terms of fascist marches and churn of White House staff and acolytes' criminal convictions and social media invective and grossly mismanaged health crises and the gutting of international institutions and allies insulted and trade wars and government shutdowns and just the whole numbing shitness of the Loser-in-Chief failing to recognise that his own people have booted him so heartily from office.... but never mind all that. Foreign events "linked to US policy". Right. [Pats williamglenn on the head]williamglenn said:
In terms of foreign events linked to US policy, Obama's term was objectively more chaotic than Trump's.Roy_G_Biv said:
Oooooo. Chaos.isam said:
I was thinking of thiswilliamglenn said:
Was this a wise thing to do?Roy_G_Biv said:
What chaos did Obama leave behind?isam said:Watching Obama last night on the BBC (free half hour of advertising for his book you might say) he did come across so well. Cameron and Blair did too in their time, but I think why these smooth types end up leaving chaos behind is their inability to resist sniping at their more explosive rivals (Trump/Farage/Leave) whilst selling themselves as moderate and reasonable. It pushes people towards the extremes, and I think Starmer is making the same error with Corbyn. It is for the likes of Farage/Trump and Jez to purge, not moderate centrist types
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHckZCxdRkA
https://youtu.be/wC1NGWM8gP8
Sometimes known as the strawman fallacy, but I prefer to think of it as the I-can-think-of-more-stupid-ideas-than-you gambit. Well done, you. [A second pat on the head]
All I asked was what chaos. I was told "Trump" which was preposterous. Then you chipped in to tell me that it was "objectively" more chaotic than Trump's, in a simultaneously narrow and yet ill-defined way (really, god alive, what were you thinking with "Foreign events linked to US policy"?).
So in a way you were sort of getting near an answer, in a hand-wavy kind of way.. something something events.. but trying to pretend that you can help your argument by holding up Donald Trump as a comparator in the good-governance stakes? You might as well have donned a big red clown nose and a tutu.
It was meant as an ironic observation rather than the defence of Trump that you seem to have taken it as.0 -
Weird isn't it.Richard_Nabavi said:
Entirely consistent. PBers, being educated and all that, know that it's I before E except after C. It's hardly PB's fault that the leader of the opposition can't spell his own name.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I got an absolute bollocking when I used whom rather than who, PB is as always, consistent5 -
This isn't an increase; it's just restating the existing commitments (8 x T26, 5 x T31). Where's the 16bn going?CarlottaVance said:The state of replies to this:
https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1329421425208389635?s=20
T32 is a rebrand of T31e for the export market.2 -
Rogerm Daltreym?kle4 said:
Whom on earth did that?CorrectHorseBattery said:
I got an absolute bollocking when I used whom rather than who, PB is as always, consistentAnabobazina said:
Keir.londonpubman said:
According to Sky News Corbyn's loss of whip will be reviewed in 3 months presumably by KierPhilip_Thompson said:
If those 14 people can't accept that what Corbyn did was wrong and that antisemitism is not exaggerated and is a real problem in the party then perhaps Starmer should respond by suspending from the party another 14 people who reject the EHRC conclusions.kle4 said:
It says that the withdrawal of the whip was a consequence of the suspension (and therefore wah wah it's unfair it is not restored). Seems to me those things need not be directly related, in that the whip can be withdrawn from someone without suspending them from the party, and Starmer could do it before a suspension occurred I should think.CarlottaVance said:
Excise the cancer completely.
K-E-I-R
K
E
I
R
Another PBer who cannot spell the Loto's name!1 -
How is it that Sir Keir can be a forensic, hot shot lawyer, principled to within an inch of his life, yet less than a year ago was in the shadow cabinet, campaigning for someone he thinks is an anti-Semite to be Prime Minister?1
-
Obama?noneoftheabove said:
Yang? Buttigieg?CarlottaVance said:Wonder who that could be?
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1329552545304485889?s=20
Warren?
Meg Whitman?0 -
TOPPING said:
Well there's that whole thing about if you forget history you are condemned to repeat it but this is in living memory and is imo a hugely important contributing factor of where we are today with race in the UK.Luckyguy1983 said:
I'm not into Friends, though I agree, many find it to be great entertainment. I am not having a go at you personally, I was just mulling this topic earlier having scanned through catch up looking for stuff to watch. We praise 'moving' TV programmes, but where are they moving us from and to? If they're moving us from being in a good mood to being in a depressed mood, I question their value. The way you describe the TV show you've watched sounds like the 'reading an improving book' of the Victorian era. An act of self-flagellation that appears to have little value outside being able to tell people you've endured it (which you have duly done).TOPPING said:
It was a very uncomfortable experience.Luckyguy1983 said:
Do you like being humbled and sobered?TOPPING said:
Agree. You think it makes no sense then it all comes together very elegantly and poignantly.NickPalmer said:Just finished off the 8-part Scandi series DNA on iPlayer (hat-tip AndyJS for pointing it out) - really moving, multi-layered series (police drama on child abuction, with guest participation by Charlotte Rampling), with a very touching final installment. Recommended if you don't mind subtitltes (Danish/Polish, with smatterings with English and French) - it's by one of the authors of The Killing and The Bridge, though less gory and closer to everyday dilemmas. The first installment is over-melodramatic, but after that it just gets better and better.
Started on Mangrove this evening. Excellent. Very humbling and sobering also esp. when anyone should choose to query why we should as a society go out of our way to be aware of the history of black people in this country.
Which is from time to time a good thing but by all means stick to Friends as it's much the easier watch if that's your thing.
If for example you were born in 1983 (just a guess) then this was happening only a decade prior to your birth so very much relevant to today.
The point about forgetting history is oft-repeated but I am not sure it is un-contested truth. But that's another debate!TOPPING said:
Well there's that whole thing about if you forget history you are condemned to repeat it but this is in living memory and is imo a hugely important contributing factor of where we are today with race in the UK.Luckyguy1983 said:
I'm not into Friends, though I agree, many find it to be great entertainment. I am not having a go at you personally, I was just mulling this topic earlier having scanned through catch up looking for stuff to watch. We praise 'moving' TV programmes, but where are they moving us from and to? If they're moving us from being in a good mood to being in a depressed mood, I question their value. The way you describe the TV show you've watched sounds like the 'reading an improving book' of the Victorian era. An act of self-flagellation that appears to have little value outside being able to tell people you've endured it (which you have duly done).TOPPING said:
It was a very uncomfortable experience.Luckyguy1983 said:
Do you like being humbled and sobered?TOPPING said:
Agree. You think it makes no sense then it all comes together very elegantly and poignantly.NickPalmer said:Just finished off the 8-part Scandi series DNA on iPlayer (hat-tip AndyJS for pointing it out) - really moving, multi-layered series (police drama on child abuction, with guest participation by Charlotte Rampling), with a very touching final installment. Recommended if you don't mind subtitltes (Danish/Polish, with smatterings with English and French) - it's by one of the authors of The Killing and The Bridge, though less gory and closer to everyday dilemmas. The first installment is over-melodramatic, but after that it just gets better and better.
Started on Mangrove this evening. Excellent. Very humbling and sobering also esp. when anyone should choose to query why we should as a society go out of our way to be aware of the history of black people in this country.
Which is from time to time a good thing but by all means stick to Friends as it's much the easier watch if that's your thing.
If for example you were born in 1983 (just a guess) then this was happening only a decade prior to your birth so very much relevant to today.0 -
My industry is part UK hospitality - I think we'll be fine.Anabobazina said:
Do you not think there are better things to be spending public money on?Luckyguy1983 said:
Who is the foremost Naval power in Europe now? It should never have stopped being us really. But I am pleased something's being done.CarlottaVance said:The state of replies to this:
https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1329421425208389635?s=20
Like, perhaps, pandemic defence and reviving a hospitality sector that is critical to the British way of life?0 -
If its most electoral votes then please can they re-settle the 2016 whilst they are at it?Pulpstar said:
And as the video points out if it gets to that point, there's no point examining things in terms of legal analysis.noneoftheabove said:
The problem with his analysis, even if it stands up on the legal detail (he sounded pretty knowledgeable and authoritative) is that if the supreme court deliberately dont follow the law and support the Presidents fiction, then even if congress should be sovereign on this, it will come down to a power struggle, not a legal one. The existing President and Supreme Court vs Congress, who knows which way the Army and various state forces break in that scenario, civil war would certainly be a possibility, but I think most likely they would follow the President and SC.Benpointer said:
Tbf, from the video, Pelosi could step aside and allow Biden to be Speaker (Speaker doesn't have to be an elected representative).MikeL said:
Yes, I saw the video posted on here last night.Pulpstar said:
I'm levelled off now in the main presidential market on Betfair, so this isn't my pocket talking but Pelosi can put a stone cold stop to all this.MikeL said:
Anything is possible.rottenborough said:
One of those summoned said on Tuesday that the result would not be changed. Now he is not responding to requests for comment.Alistair said:Look, I'm not saying the situation is serious but the NY Times couldn't even do a "both sides" headline
https://twitter.com/skantrow/status/1329531142186340357?s=19
Hope that doesn't mean he's busy changing his mind.
I think there has been an enormous amount of complacency - because what Trump is trying to do is so outlandish everyone just assumes it couldn't possibly happen.
Well I think it's clear now that they are going to play every conceivable trick in the book - Republican canvassers won't certify results, Republican legislatures will appoint Trump electors - they will literally go for anything.
I fully accept that most people think they won't succeed and that may well be correct - but I wouldn't put money on it - this is the USA with a highly politicised Judiciary - absolutely anything could happen.
One Dem congressman, one Dem senator file an objection at the Electoral Count when Michigan's subverted GOP electors are read out. Electoral Count pauses,house doesn't reach a decision till 20th January. By operation of law Trump ceases his presidency on the 20th January and acting then President Pelosi directs the national guard to arrest him from the White House. The Democrats may well fuck this particular trick up - they're as incompetent sometimes as the GOP is outright evil.
And worth noting that under the scenario required to stop Trump, it would be Pelosi and not Biden who would become President.
How would Betfair then settle their President market? Void it?
The lower courts rulings and lack of any substance they have been able to show so far obviously make the fiction much harder for the SC judges to buy, but if they do, I doubt it will end up with President Pelosi in control of real power.
More importantly the market should settle for Biden as he clearly has the most electoral votes.
More seriously, Trump does need to create a legal fiction to get the SC and Army on board, so the law matters even if its not decisive in the Trump win, it is still necessary. It needs some plausibility.
Its a massive task to create that fiction from what was a slightly bigger than average Presidential win for Biden. If it had been close I think he may have succeeded.1 -
There seems to be something of a double standard here: Trump is allowed to push his crazy Birther stuff, but Obama isn't allowed to hit back.isam said:
He wasn’t able to stand again. And his smart arse piss takes out of Trump helped enable Trump. As Cameron’s smart arse piss takes out of Leave enabled Leavercs1000 said:
Trump won in 2016 because he wasn't Hillary.isam said:Watching Obama last night on the BBC (free half hour of advertising for his book you might say) he did come across so well. Cameron did too in his time, but I think why these smooth types end up leaving chaos behind is their inability to resist sniping at their more explosive rivals (Trump/Farage/Leave) whilst selling themselves as moderate and reasonable. It pushes people towards the extremes, and I think Starmer is making the same error with Corbyn. It is for the likes of Farage/Trump and Jez to purge, not moderate centrist types
Biden won in 2020 because he wasn't Trump.
In 2016, had he been able to stand again, I think Obama would have trounced Trump.
Politicians who call for unity & moderation don’t do so well when they go with personal attacks6 -
.
Is the rebrand a confirmation that we might actually build the things ?Dura_Ace said:
This isn't an increase; it's just restating the existing commitments (8 x T26, 5 x T31). Where's the 16bn going?CarlottaVance said:The state of replies to this:
https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1329421425208389635?s=20
T32 is a rebrand of T31e for the export market.
I don’t follow this closely, but I got the impression that quite a lot of the money might be to fill the ongoing funding deficit ?0 -
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer....isam said:How is it that Sir Keir can be a forensic, hot shot lawyer, principled to within an inch of his life, yet less than a year ago was in the shadow cabinet, campaigning for someone he thinks is an anti-Semite to be Prime Minister?
0 -
Hmm, I think you are on a very sticky wicket there. Iran, for a starter, where Trump has unambiguously and by direct action made things worse, with potentially catastrophic consequences that may well dwarf Libya, Syria or Crimea. And all those three were not caused by the Western leaders. You can argue that they didn't respond well to the developing crises, but any fool can carp from the sidelines, and even with hindsight it's hard to see what better responses could have been made.williamglenn said:
I wouldn't have chosen the word chaos to begin with but that's the reason I went for the example of foreign policy where Obama's record was undoubtedly chequered. What happened in the last four years to compete with the Libyan intervention, mishandling of Syria or Russia's annexation of Crimea? The world was in a more chaotic state in 2016 than in 2008 and some of that is attributable to the Obama administration.
1 -
Good oh. Panic over.Luckyguy1983 said:
My industry is part UK hospitality - I think we'll be fine.Anabobazina said:
Do you not think there are better things to be spending public money on?Luckyguy1983 said:
Who is the foremost Naval power in Europe now? It should never have stopped being us really. But I am pleased something's being done.CarlottaVance said:The state of replies to this:
https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1329421425208389635?s=20
Like, perhaps, pandemic defence and reviving a hospitality sector that is critical to the British way of life?1 -
The maxim about wrestling with pigs applies.rcs1000 said:
There seems to be something of a double standard here: Trump is allowed to push his crazy Birther stuff, but Obama isn't allowed to hit back.isam said:
He wasn’t able to stand again. And his smart arse piss takes out of Trump helped enable Trump. As Cameron’s smart arse piss takes out of Leave enabled Leavercs1000 said:
Trump won in 2016 because he wasn't Hillary.isam said:Watching Obama last night on the BBC (free half hour of advertising for his book you might say) he did come across so well. Cameron did too in his time, but I think why these smooth types end up leaving chaos behind is their inability to resist sniping at their more explosive rivals (Trump/Farage/Leave) whilst selling themselves as moderate and reasonable. It pushes people towards the extremes, and I think Starmer is making the same error with Corbyn. It is for the likes of Farage/Trump and Jez to purge, not moderate centrist types
Biden won in 2020 because he wasn't Trump.
In 2016, had he been able to stand again, I think Obama would have trounced Trump.
Politicians who call for unity & moderation don’t do so well when they go with personal attacks0 -
People on here are always getting politicians' names wrong. They keep referring to the PM as "Boris".Anabobazina said:
Keir.londonpubman said:
According to Sky News Corbyn's loss of whip will be reviewed in 3 months presumably by KierPhilip_Thompson said:
If those 14 people can't accept that what Corbyn did was wrong and that antisemitism is not exaggerated and is a real problem in the party then perhaps Starmer should respond by suspending from the party another 14 people who reject the EHRC conclusions.kle4 said:
It says that the withdrawal of the whip was a consequence of the suspension (and therefore wah wah it's unfair it is not restored). Seems to me those things need not be directly related, in that the whip can be withdrawn from someone without suspending them from the party, and Starmer could do it before a suspension occurred I should think.CarlottaVance said:
Excise the cancer completely.
K-E-I-R
K
E
I
R
Another PBer who cannot spell the Loto's name!2 -
Keir Ends In R. Easy.1
-
Well you can understand the confusion now that Dominic's gone.OnlyLivingBoy said:
People on here are always getting politicians' names wrong. They keep referring to the PM as "Boris".Anabobazina said:
Keir.londonpubman said:
According to Sky News Corbyn's loss of whip will be reviewed in 3 months presumably by KierPhilip_Thompson said:
If those 14 people can't accept that what Corbyn did was wrong and that antisemitism is not exaggerated and is a real problem in the party then perhaps Starmer should respond by suspending from the party another 14 people who reject the EHRC conclusions.kle4 said:
It says that the withdrawal of the whip was a consequence of the suspension (and therefore wah wah it's unfair it is not restored). Seems to me those things need not be directly related, in that the whip can be withdrawn from someone without suspending them from the party, and Starmer could do it before a suspension occurred I should think.CarlottaVance said:
Excise the cancer completely.
K-E-I-R
K
E
I
R
Another PBer who cannot spell the Loto's name!0 -
Close in one state and GOP control of the House would have been a done deal for Trump. There's too many moving parts against him now as you imply.noneoftheabove said:
If its most electoral votes then please can they re-settle the 2016 whilst they are at it?Pulpstar said:
And as the video points out if it gets to that point, there's no point examining things in terms of legal analysis.noneoftheabove said:
The problem with his analysis, even if it stands up on the legal detail (he sounded pretty knowledgeable and authoritative) is that if the supreme court deliberately dont follow the law and support the Presidents fiction, then even if congress should be sovereign on this, it will come down to a power struggle, not a legal one. The existing President and Supreme Court vs Congress, who knows which way the Army and various state forces break in that scenario, civil war would certainly be a possibility, but I think most likely they would follow the President and SC.Benpointer said:
Tbf, from the video, Pelosi could step aside and allow Biden to be Speaker (Speaker doesn't have to be an elected representative).MikeL said:
Yes, I saw the video posted on here last night.Pulpstar said:
I'm levelled off now in the main presidential market on Betfair, so this isn't my pocket talking but Pelosi can put a stone cold stop to all this.MikeL said:
Anything is possible.rottenborough said:
One of those summoned said on Tuesday that the result would not be changed. Now he is not responding to requests for comment.Alistair said:Look, I'm not saying the situation is serious but the NY Times couldn't even do a "both sides" headline
https://twitter.com/skantrow/status/1329531142186340357?s=19
Hope that doesn't mean he's busy changing his mind.
I think there has been an enormous amount of complacency - because what Trump is trying to do is so outlandish everyone just assumes it couldn't possibly happen.
Well I think it's clear now that they are going to play every conceivable trick in the book - Republican canvassers won't certify results, Republican legislatures will appoint Trump electors - they will literally go for anything.
I fully accept that most people think they won't succeed and that may well be correct - but I wouldn't put money on it - this is the USA with a highly politicised Judiciary - absolutely anything could happen.
One Dem congressman, one Dem senator file an objection at the Electoral Count when Michigan's subverted GOP electors are read out. Electoral Count pauses,house doesn't reach a decision till 20th January. By operation of law Trump ceases his presidency on the 20th January and acting then President Pelosi directs the national guard to arrest him from the White House. The Democrats may well fuck this particular trick up - they're as incompetent sometimes as the GOP is outright evil.
And worth noting that under the scenario required to stop Trump, it would be Pelosi and not Biden who would become President.
How would Betfair then settle their President market? Void it?
The lower courts rulings and lack of any substance they have been able to show so far obviously make the fiction much harder for the SC judges to buy, but if they do, I doubt it will end up with President Pelosi in control of real power.
More importantly the market should settle for Biden as he clearly has the most electoral votes.
More seriously, Trump does need to create a legal fiction to get the SC and Army on board, so the law matters even ifs not decisive in the Trump win, it is still necessary. It needs some plausibility.
Its a massive task to create that fiction from what was a slightly bigger than average Presidential win for Biden. If it had been close I think he may have succeeded.
I meant projected electoral college votes, the popular vote is of course irrelevant in law or fact for deciding the winner.0 -
-
But that is based on the underlying notion that one has to suffer to achieve something good. To be a better person one has to inflict some form of challenge or suffering on oneself.kle4 said:
I think if something makes you reflect on something, on yourself even, then even if it is depressing then it clearly has value. We might need that sometimes.Luckyguy1983 said:
I'm not into Friends, though I agree, many find it to be great entertainment. I am not having a go at you personally, I was just mulling this topic earlier having scanned through catch up looking for stuff to watch. We praise 'moving' TV programmes, but where are they moving us from and to? If they're moving us from being in a good mood to being in a depressed mood, I question their value. The way you describe the TV show you've watched sounds like the 'reading an improving book' of the Victorian era. An act of self-flagellation that appears to have little value outside being able to tell people you've endured it (which you have duly done).TOPPING said:
It was a very uncomfortable experience.Luckyguy1983 said:
Do you like being humbled and sobered?TOPPING said:
Agree. You think it makes no sense then it all comes together very elegantly and poignantly.NickPalmer said:Just finished off the 8-part Scandi series DNA on iPlayer (hat-tip AndyJS for pointing it out) - really moving, multi-layered series (police drama on child abuction, with guest participation by Charlotte Rampling), with a very touching final installment. Recommended if you don't mind subtitltes (Danish/Polish, with smatterings with English and French) - it's by one of the authors of The Killing and The Bridge, though less gory and closer to everyday dilemmas. The first installment is over-melodramatic, but after that it just gets better and better.
Started on Mangrove this evening. Excellent. Very humbling and sobering also esp. when anyone should choose to query why we should as a society go out of our way to be aware of the history of black people in this country.
Which is from time to time a good thing but by all means stick to Friends as it's much the easier watch if that's your thing.
But some things can be a kind of depression porn, wallowing in awfulness without actually saying much (quite a bit of modern fantasy literature falls into that trap), or saying something really insipid, on the misunderstanding that because something is sad, it is therefore deep.
I don't generally like depressing stuff, but I still found 12 years a slave to be a very worthwhile film to watch (though I did have to skip to the 'happy' end so I could get through the rough parts).0 -
I don't recall panicking.Anabobazina said:
Good oh. Panic over.Luckyguy1983 said:
My industry is part UK hospitality - I think we'll be fine.Anabobazina said:
Do you not think there are better things to be spending public money on?Luckyguy1983 said:
Who is the foremost Naval power in Europe now? It should never have stopped being us really. But I am pleased something's being done.CarlottaVance said:The state of replies to this:
https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1329421425208389635?s=20
Like, perhaps, pandemic defence and reviving a hospitality sector that is critical to the British way of life?-2 -
That’s exactly the point!rcs1000 said:
There seems to be something of a double standard here: Trump is allowed to push his crazy Birther stuff, but Obama isn't allowed to hit back.isam said:
He wasn’t able to stand again. And his smart arse piss takes out of Trump helped enable Trump. As Cameron’s smart arse piss takes out of Leave enabled Leavercs1000 said:
Trump won in 2016 because he wasn't Hillary.isam said:Watching Obama last night on the BBC (free half hour of advertising for his book you might say) he did come across so well. Cameron did too in his time, but I think why these smooth types end up leaving chaos behind is their inability to resist sniping at their more explosive rivals (Trump/Farage/Leave) whilst selling themselves as moderate and reasonable. It pushes people towards the extremes, and I think Starmer is making the same error with Corbyn. It is for the likes of Farage/Trump and Jez to purge, not moderate centrist types
Biden won in 2020 because he wasn't Trump.
In 2016, had he been able to stand again, I think Obama would have trounced Trump.
Politicians who call for unity & moderation don’t do so well when they go with personal attacks1 -
Sir Alec Douglas Home is in bed with floLuckyguy1983 said:
He left a poisonous legacy of me calling him Alec Douglas-HOME in a Zoom quiz and being mockingly reminded it was HUME.Richard_Nabavi said:
On the other hand I think you'd find it extremely hard to name a leader who didn't leave a toxic legacy by that standard. Sir Alec Douglas-Home is the only one who immediately occurs to me as a possibility, and I'm not sure it's particularly to his credit.williamglenn said:
I can't think of a more stupid view than that it is idiotic even to entertain the idea that leaders like Obama, Cameron and Blair may have left a toxic legacy so I'm afraid you have me beat.1 -
Good oh. Publicans, restaurateurs and hoteliers up and down the land can sleep soundly in their beds.Luckyguy1983 said:
I don't recall panicking.Anabobazina said:
Good oh. Panic over.Luckyguy1983 said:
My industry is part UK hospitality - I think we'll be fine.Anabobazina said:
Do you not think there are better things to be spending public money on?Luckyguy1983 said:
Who is the foremost Naval power in Europe now? It should never have stopped being us really. But I am pleased something's being done.CarlottaVance said:The state of replies to this:
https://twitter.com/blairmcdougall/status/1329421425208389635?s=20
Like, perhaps, pandemic defence and reviving a hospitality sector that is critical to the British way of life?1 -
The other key point to those dismissing this coup attempt is it was initiated many months back, when Republican politicians in key states set the rules that mail in votes had to be counted last, and the President attacked mail in voting. Hundreds of republican elected officials were completely fine with this shameless attack on democracy.Pulpstar said:
Close in one state and GOP control of the House would have been a done deal for Trump. There's too many moving parts against him now as you imply.noneoftheabove said:
If its most electoral votes then please can they re-settle the 2016 whilst they are at it?Pulpstar said:
And as the video points out if it gets to that point, there's no point examining things in terms of legal analysis.noneoftheabove said:
The problem with his analysis, even if it stands up on the legal detail (he sounded pretty knowledgeable and authoritative) is that if the supreme court deliberately dont follow the law and support the Presidents fiction, then even if congress should be sovereign on this, it will come down to a power struggle, not a legal one. The existing President and Supreme Court vs Congress, who knows which way the Army and various state forces break in that scenario, civil war would certainly be a possibility, but I think most likely they would follow the President and SC.Benpointer said:
Tbf, from the video, Pelosi could step aside and allow Biden to be Speaker (Speaker doesn't have to be an elected representative).MikeL said:
Yes, I saw the video posted on here last night.Pulpstar said:
I'm levelled off now in the main presidential market on Betfair, so this isn't my pocket talking but Pelosi can put a stone cold stop to all this.MikeL said:
Anything is possible.rottenborough said:
One of those summoned said on Tuesday that the result would not be changed. Now he is not responding to requests for comment.Alistair said:Look, I'm not saying the situation is serious but the NY Times couldn't even do a "both sides" headline
https://twitter.com/skantrow/status/1329531142186340357?s=19
Hope that doesn't mean he's busy changing his mind.
I think there has been an enormous amount of complacency - because what Trump is trying to do is so outlandish everyone just assumes it couldn't possibly happen.
Well I think it's clear now that they are going to play every conceivable trick in the book - Republican canvassers won't certify results, Republican legislatures will appoint Trump electors - they will literally go for anything.
I fully accept that most people think they won't succeed and that may well be correct - but I wouldn't put money on it - this is the USA with a highly politicised Judiciary - absolutely anything could happen.
One Dem congressman, one Dem senator file an objection at the Electoral Count when Michigan's subverted GOP electors are read out. Electoral Count pauses,house doesn't reach a decision till 20th January. By operation of law Trump ceases his presidency on the 20th January and acting then President Pelosi directs the national guard to arrest him from the White House. The Democrats may well fuck this particular trick up - they're as incompetent sometimes as the GOP is outright evil.
And worth noting that under the scenario required to stop Trump, it would be Pelosi and not Biden who would become President.
How would Betfair then settle their President market? Void it?
The lower courts rulings and lack of any substance they have been able to show so far obviously make the fiction much harder for the SC judges to buy, but if they do, I doubt it will end up with President Pelosi in control of real power.
More importantly the market should settle for Biden as he clearly has the most electoral votes.
More seriously, Trump does need to create a legal fiction to get the SC and Army on board, so the law matters even ifs not decisive in the Trump win, it is still necessary. It needs some plausibility.
Its a massive task to create that fiction from what was a slightly bigger than average Presidential win for Biden. If it had been close I think he may have succeeded.
I meant projected electoral college votes, the popular vote is of course irrelevant in law or fact for deciding the winner.
Even if it fails, the mere fact a coup has been attempted and planned in advance in plain sight, yet is seen as a temper tantrum in response to Trump losing shows how complacent commentators are here.2 -
You need to use quotation marks, otherwise that sentence makes no sense.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I got an absolute bollocking when I used whom rather than who, PB is as always, consistentAnabobazina said:
Keir.londonpubman said:
According to Sky News Corbyn's loss of whip will be reviewed in 3 months presumably by KierPhilip_Thompson said:
If those 14 people can't accept that what Corbyn did was wrong and that antisemitism is not exaggerated and is a real problem in the party then perhaps Starmer should respond by suspending from the party another 14 people who reject the EHRC conclusions.kle4 said:
It says that the withdrawal of the whip was a consequence of the suspension (and therefore wah wah it's unfair it is not restored). Seems to me those things need not be directly related, in that the whip can be withdrawn from someone without suspending them from the party, and Starmer could do it before a suspension occurred I should think.CarlottaVance said:
Excise the cancer completely.
K-E-I-R
K
E
I
R
Another PBer who cannot spell the Loto's name!
I got an absolute bollocking when I used "whom" rather than "who", PB is as always, consistent5 -
No, I wasn't taking it as a defence of Trump, I was taking it on its own merits, which were ludicrous.williamglenn said:
I wouldn't have chosen the word chaos to begin with but that's the reason I went for the example of foreign policy where Obama's record was undoubtedly chequered. What happened in the last four years to compete with the Libyan intervention, mishandling of Syria or Russia's annexation of Crimea? The world was in a more chaotic state in 2016 than in 2008 and some of that is attributable to the Obama administration.Roy_G_Biv said:
I think you have yourself beat.williamglenn said:
I can't think of a more stupid view than that it is idiotic even to entertain the idea that leaders like Obama, Cameron and Blair may have left a toxic legacy so I'm afraid you have me beat.Roy_G_Biv said:
Ah, the old "you won't agree with my idiotic views, so I'll make up another idiotic view and assign it to you" defence.williamglenn said:
Apologies, America was clearly an unmitigated force for good and a shining city upon a hill until Trump arrived and spoilt everything...Roy_G_Biv said:
In terms of fascist marches and churn of White House staff and acolytes' criminal convictions and social media invective and grossly mismanaged health crises and the gutting of international institutions and allies insulted and trade wars and government shutdowns and just the whole numbing shitness of the Loser-in-Chief failing to recognise that his own people have booted him so heartily from office.... but never mind all that. Foreign events "linked to US policy". Right. [Pats williamglenn on the head]williamglenn said:
In terms of foreign events linked to US policy, Obama's term was objectively more chaotic than Trump's.Roy_G_Biv said:
Oooooo. Chaos.isam said:
I was thinking of thiswilliamglenn said:
Was this a wise thing to do?Roy_G_Biv said:
What chaos did Obama leave behind?isam said:Watching Obama last night on the BBC (free half hour of advertising for his book you might say) he did come across so well. Cameron and Blair did too in their time, but I think why these smooth types end up leaving chaos behind is their inability to resist sniping at their more explosive rivals (Trump/Farage/Leave) whilst selling themselves as moderate and reasonable. It pushes people towards the extremes, and I think Starmer is making the same error with Corbyn. It is for the likes of Farage/Trump and Jez to purge, not moderate centrist types
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHckZCxdRkA
https://youtu.be/wC1NGWM8gP8
Sometimes known as the strawman fallacy, but I prefer to think of it as the I-can-think-of-more-stupid-ideas-than-you gambit. Well done, you. [A second pat on the head]
All I asked was what chaos. I was told "Trump" which was preposterous. Then you chipped in to tell me that it was "objectively" more chaotic than Trump's, in a simultaneously narrow and yet ill-defined way (really, god alive, what were you thinking with "Foreign events linked to US policy"?).
So in a way you were sort of getting near an answer, in a hand-wavy kind of way.. something something events.. but trying to pretend that you can help your argument by holding up Donald Trump as a comparator in the good-governance stakes? You might as well have donned a big red clown nose and a tutu.
It was meant as an ironic observation rather than the defence of Trump that you seem to have taken it as.
Now that you've identified some specific things, yes, some of those events could certainly have been handled better by Obama's government. Russia has been a big problem the last decade, and it's not just Crimea. cyber warfare, its political meddling across the West (and I'm not just talking USA, I'm talking Scotland, Brexit, France, Germany, Italy, Catalonia), its probing of Western military responses (Sweden, the Baltics, the UK), its policy of murdering people on the streets of Britain, its bargain with Assad. These are problems that need a better response from the West as a united bloc.
I could throw in a comparison now with Trump, but it's too easy and it's besides the point. Here we absolutely can judge the Obama administration on its own merits. And whilst it was imperfect, there are some good points. The Magnitsky Act is one, and both Democrats and Republicans deserve credit for that.
I don't agree that the world was more chaotic in 2016 than 2008. Some things were worse and others better. The financial crisis was pretty profound and was the cause of a lot of the problems that happened in subsequent years. I think we could have done a lot worse than Obama and Cameron during that time.0 -
Semicolon, comma, and full stop, please:rcs1000 said:
You need to use quotation marks, otherwise that sentence makes no sense.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I got an absolute bollocking when I used whom rather than who, PB is as always, consistentAnabobazina said:
Keir.londonpubman said:
According to Sky News Corbyn's loss of whip will be reviewed in 3 months presumably by KierPhilip_Thompson said:
If those 14 people can't accept that what Corbyn did was wrong and that antisemitism is not exaggerated and is a real problem in the party then perhaps Starmer should respond by suspending from the party another 14 people who reject the EHRC conclusions.kle4 said:
It says that the withdrawal of the whip was a consequence of the suspension (and therefore wah wah it's unfair it is not restored). Seems to me those things need not be directly related, in that the whip can be withdrawn from someone without suspending them from the party, and Starmer could do it before a suspension occurred I should think.CarlottaVance said:
Excise the cancer completely.
K-E-I-R
K
E
I
R
Another PBer who cannot spell the Loto's name!
I got an absolute bollocking when I used "whom" rather than "who", PB is as always, consistent
I got an absolute bollocking when I used "whom" rather than "who"; PB is, as always, consistent.3 -
No full stop at the end of that sentence, is that because a full stop is intimidating?rcs1000 said:
You need to use quotation marks, otherwise that sentence makes no sense.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I got an absolute bollocking when I used whom rather than who, PB is as always, consistentAnabobazina said:
Keir.londonpubman said:
According to Sky News Corbyn's loss of whip will be reviewed in 3 months presumably by KierPhilip_Thompson said:
If those 14 people can't accept that what Corbyn did was wrong and that antisemitism is not exaggerated and is a real problem in the party then perhaps Starmer should respond by suspending from the party another 14 people who reject the EHRC conclusions.kle4 said:
It says that the withdrawal of the whip was a consequence of the suspension (and therefore wah wah it's unfair it is not restored). Seems to me those things need not be directly related, in that the whip can be withdrawn from someone without suspending them from the party, and Starmer could do it before a suspension occurred I should think.CarlottaVance said:
Excise the cancer completely.
K-E-I-R
K
E
I
R
Another PBer who cannot spell the Loto's name!
I got an absolute bollocking when I used "whom" rather than "who", PB is as always, consistent0 -
Just a reminder of the danger of predicting good times.
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1212679425629859840?s=200 -
Are there two Ian Murrays?kle4 said:
It says that the withdrawal of the whip was a consequence of the suspension (and therefore wah wah it's unfair it is not restored). Seems to me those things need not be directly related, in that the whip can be withdrawn from someone without suspending them from the party, and Starmer could do it before a suspension occurred I should think.CarlottaVance said:0 -
Personally I would replace the first comma with a full stop and insert a different comma after "is".rcs1000 said:
You need to use quotation marks, otherwise that sentence makes no sense.CorrectHorseBattery said:
I got an absolute bollocking when I used whom rather than who, PB is as always, consistentAnabobazina said:
Keir.londonpubman said:
According to Sky News Corbyn's loss of whip will be reviewed in 3 months presumably by KierPhilip_Thompson said:
If those 14 people can't accept that what Corbyn did was wrong and that antisemitism is not exaggerated and is a real problem in the party then perhaps Starmer should respond by suspending from the party another 14 people who reject the EHRC conclusions.kle4 said:
It says that the withdrawal of the whip was a consequence of the suspension (and therefore wah wah it's unfair it is not restored). Seems to me those things need not be directly related, in that the whip can be withdrawn from someone without suspending them from the party, and Starmer could do it before a suspension occurred I should think.CarlottaVance said:
Excise the cancer completely.
K-E-I-R
K
E
I
R
Another PBer who cannot spell the Loto's name!
I got an absolute bollocking when I used "whom" rather than "who", PB is as always, consistent3 -
I never saw what was crazy about the birther theory. It is virtually certainly wrong, but it is perfectly coherent and rational. Not like thinking he was spawned by giant lizards. Not even as bonkers as thinking the Old Pretender was smuggled in in a warming pan.rcs1000 said:
There seems to be something of a double standard here: Trump is allowed to push his crazy Birther stuff, but Obama isn't allowed to hit back.isam said:
He wasn’t able to stand again. And his smart arse piss takes out of Trump helped enable Trump. As Cameron’s smart arse piss takes out of Leave enabled Leavercs1000 said:
Trump won in 2016 because he wasn't Hillary.isam said:Watching Obama last night on the BBC (free half hour of advertising for his book you might say) he did come across so well. Cameron did too in his time, but I think why these smooth types end up leaving chaos behind is their inability to resist sniping at their more explosive rivals (Trump/Farage/Leave) whilst selling themselves as moderate and reasonable. It pushes people towards the extremes, and I think Starmer is making the same error with Corbyn. It is for the likes of Farage/Trump and Jez to purge, not moderate centrist types
Biden won in 2020 because he wasn't Trump.
In 2016, had he been able to stand again, I think Obama would have trounced Trump.
Politicians who call for unity & moderation don’t do so well when they go with personal attacks0 -
No it isn't. Some stories and lessons might require it, but most do not. And even when it might be it still has to be an entertaining watch in some form - great acting, direction etc - or there is no value as there mere fact it is depressing and suffering to get through doesn't mean you will take anything of value from it.Luckyguy1983 said:
But that is based on the underlying notion that one has to suffer to achieve something good. To be a better person one has to inflict some form of challenge or suffering on oneself.kle4 said:
I think if something makes you reflect on something, on yourself even, then even if it is depressing then it clearly has value. We might need that sometimes.Luckyguy1983 said:
I'm not into Friends, though I agree, many find it to be great entertainment. I am not having a go at you personally, I was just mulling this topic earlier having scanned through catch up looking for stuff to watch. We praise 'moving' TV programmes, but where are they moving us from and to? If they're moving us from being in a good mood to being in a depressed mood, I question their value. The way you describe the TV show you've watched sounds like the 'reading an improving book' of the Victorian era. An act of self-flagellation that appears to have little value outside being able to tell people you've endured it (which you have duly done).TOPPING said:
It was a very uncomfortable experience.Luckyguy1983 said:
Do you like being humbled and sobered?TOPPING said:
Agree. You think it makes no sense then it all comes together very elegantly and poignantly.NickPalmer said:Just finished off the 8-part Scandi series DNA on iPlayer (hat-tip AndyJS for pointing it out) - really moving, multi-layered series (police drama on child abuction, with guest participation by Charlotte Rampling), with a very touching final installment. Recommended if you don't mind subtitltes (Danish/Polish, with smatterings with English and French) - it's by one of the authors of The Killing and The Bridge, though less gory and closer to everyday dilemmas. The first installment is over-melodramatic, but after that it just gets better and better.
Started on Mangrove this evening. Excellent. Very humbling and sobering also esp. when anyone should choose to query why we should as a society go out of our way to be aware of the history of black people in this country.
Which is from time to time a good thing but by all means stick to Friends as it's much the easier watch if that's your thing.
But some things can be a kind of depression porn, wallowing in awfulness without actually saying much (quite a bit of modern fantasy literature falls into that trap), or saying something really insipid, on the misunderstanding that because something is sad, it is therefore deep.
I don't generally like depressing stuff, but I still found 12 years a slave to be a very worthwhile film to watch (though I did have to skip to the 'happy' end so I could get through the rough parts).0 -
[voiceover] "There was me, that is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, and my three droogs, that is Priti, Govey, and Dom, and we sat in the Kensington Milkbar trying to make up our Raab-oodocks what to do with the evening. The Kensington Milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus GM Soya or Corn Syrup or Chlorinated Chicken, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old No-deal Brexit!"OnlyLivingBoy said:
People on here are always getting politicians' names wrong. They keep referring to the PM as "Boris".Anabobazina said:
Keir.londonpubman said:
According to Sky News Corbyn's loss of whip will be reviewed in 3 months presumably by KierPhilip_Thompson said:
If those 14 people can't accept that what Corbyn did was wrong and that antisemitism is not exaggerated and is a real problem in the party then perhaps Starmer should respond by suspending from the party another 14 people who reject the EHRC conclusions.kle4 said:
It says that the withdrawal of the whip was a consequence of the suspension (and therefore wah wah it's unfair it is not restored). Seems to me those things need not be directly related, in that the whip can be withdrawn from someone without suspending them from the party, and Starmer could do it before a suspension occurred I should think.CarlottaVance said:
Excise the cancer completely.
K-E-I-R
K
E
I
R
Another PBer who cannot spell the Loto's name!4 -
When friends of yours get divorced do you ring up the people who gave speeches at the wedding to say LOL, you must feel really stupid now?Gallowgate said:Just a reminder of the danger of predicting good times.
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1212679425629859840?s=201 -
I dunno, none of my friends have got divorced. 🤷♂️IshmaelZ said:
When friends of yours get divorced do you ring up the people who gave speeches at the wedding to say LOL, you must feel really stupid now?Gallowgate said:Just a reminder of the danger of predicting good times.
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1212679425629859840?s=200 -
Yes, as it turns out.Roger said:
Are there two Ian Murrays?kle4 said:
It says that the withdrawal of the whip was a consequence of the suspension (and therefore wah wah it's unfair it is not restored). Seems to me those things need not be directly related, in that the whip can be withdrawn from someone without suspending them from the party, and Starmer could do it before a suspension occurred I should think.CarlottaVance said:0 -
Surely "and Priti, Priti being really priti"?Sunil_Prasannan said:
[voiceover] "There was me, that is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, and my three droogs, that is Priti, Govey, and Dom, and we sat in the Kensington Milkbar trying to make up our Raab-oodocks what to do with the evening. The Kensington Milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus GM Soya or Corn Syrup or Chlorinated Chicken, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old No-deal Brexit!"OnlyLivingBoy said:
People on here are always getting politicians' names wrong. They keep referring to the PM as "Boris".Anabobazina said:
Keir.londonpubman said:
According to Sky News Corbyn's loss of whip will be reviewed in 3 months presumably by KierPhilip_Thompson said:
If those 14 people can't accept that what Corbyn did was wrong and that antisemitism is not exaggerated and is a real problem in the party then perhaps Starmer should respond by suspending from the party another 14 people who reject the EHRC conclusions.kle4 said:
It says that the withdrawal of the whip was a consequence of the suspension (and therefore wah wah it's unfair it is not restored). Seems to me those things need not be directly related, in that the whip can be withdrawn from someone without suspending them from the party, and Starmer could do it before a suspension occurred I should think.CarlottaVance said:
Excise the cancer completely.
K-E-I-R
K
E
I
R
Another PBer who cannot spell the Loto's name!0 -
The Electoral College, in its current form, is a gerrymander.Pulpstar said:
Close in one state and GOP control of the House would have been a done deal for Trump. There's too many moving parts against him now as you imply.noneoftheabove said:
If its most electoral votes then please can they re-settle the 2016 whilst they are at it?Pulpstar said:
And as the video points out if it gets to that point, there's no point examining things in terms of legal analysis.noneoftheabove said:
The problem with his analysis, even if it stands up on the legal detail (he sounded pretty knowledgeable and authoritative) is that if the supreme court deliberately dont follow the law and support the Presidents fiction, then even if congress should be sovereign on this, it will come down to a power struggle, not a legal one. The existing President and Supreme Court vs Congress, who knows which way the Army and various state forces break in that scenario, civil war would certainly be a possibility, but I think most likely they would follow the President and SC.Benpointer said:
Tbf, from the video, Pelosi could step aside and allow Biden to be Speaker (Speaker doesn't have to be an elected representative).MikeL said:
Yes, I saw the video posted on here last night.Pulpstar said:
I'm levelled off now in the main presidential market on Betfair, so this isn't my pocket talking but Pelosi can put a stone cold stop to all this.MikeL said:
Anything is possible.rottenborough said:
One of those summoned said on Tuesday that the result would not be changed. Now he is not responding to requests for comment.Alistair said:Look, I'm not saying the situation is serious but the NY Times couldn't even do a "both sides" headline
https://twitter.com/skantrow/status/1329531142186340357?s=19
Hope that doesn't mean he's busy changing his mind.
I think there has been an enormous amount of complacency - because what Trump is trying to do is so outlandish everyone just assumes it couldn't possibly happen.
Well I think it's clear now that they are going to play every conceivable trick in the book - Republican canvassers won't certify results, Republican legislatures will appoint Trump electors - they will literally go for anything.
I fully accept that most people think they won't succeed and that may well be correct - but I wouldn't put money on it - this is the USA with a highly politicised Judiciary - absolutely anything could happen.
One Dem congressman, one Dem senator file an objection at the Electoral Count when Michigan's subverted GOP electors are read out. Electoral Count pauses,house doesn't reach a decision till 20th January. By operation of law Trump ceases his presidency on the 20th January and acting then President Pelosi directs the national guard to arrest him from the White House. The Democrats may well fuck this particular trick up - they're as incompetent sometimes as the GOP is outright evil.
And worth noting that under the scenario required to stop Trump, it would be Pelosi and not Biden who would become President.
How would Betfair then settle their President market? Void it?
The lower courts rulings and lack of any substance they have been able to show so far obviously make the fiction much harder for the SC judges to buy, but if they do, I doubt it will end up with President Pelosi in control of real power.
More importantly the market should settle for Biden as he clearly has the most electoral votes.
More seriously, Trump does need to create a legal fiction to get the SC and Army on board, so the law matters even ifs not decisive in the Trump win, it is still necessary. It needs some plausibility.
Its a massive task to create that fiction from what was a slightly bigger than average Presidential win for Biden. If it had been close I think he may have succeeded.
I meant projected electoral college votes, the popular vote is of course irrelevant in law or fact for deciding the winner.0 -
Depends on the speech. "I wish you a happy statistically average 12 years together".IshmaelZ said:
When friends of yours get divorced do you ring up the people who gave speeches at the wedding to say LOL, you must feel really stupid now?Gallowgate said:Just a reminder of the danger of predicting good times.
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1212679425629859840?s=201 -
Beethoven-ready BrexitSunil_Prasannan said:
[voiceover] "There was me, that is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel, and my three droogs, that is Priti, Govey, and Dom, and we sat in the Kensington Milkbar trying to make up our Raab-oodocks what to do with the evening. The Kensington Milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus GM Soya or Corn Syrup or Chlorinated Chicken, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old No-deal Brexit!"OnlyLivingBoy said:
People on here are always getting politicians' names wrong. They keep referring to the PM as "Boris".Anabobazina said:
Keir.londonpubman said:
According to Sky News Corbyn's loss of whip will be reviewed in 3 months presumably by KierPhilip_Thompson said:
If those 14 people can't accept that what Corbyn did was wrong and that antisemitism is not exaggerated and is a real problem in the party then perhaps Starmer should respond by suspending from the party another 14 people who reject the EHRC conclusions.kle4 said:
It says that the withdrawal of the whip was a consequence of the suspension (and therefore wah wah it's unfair it is not restored). Seems to me those things need not be directly related, in that the whip can be withdrawn from someone without suspending them from the party, and Starmer could do it before a suspension occurred I should think.CarlottaVance said:
Excise the cancer completely.
K-E-I-R
K
E
I
R
Another PBer who cannot spell the Loto's name!1 -
Bonkers!MrEd said:
That was a stupid thing of Obama. What really showed his character though was the look in his eyes at the end.isam said:
I was thinking of thiswilliamglenn said:
Was this a wise thing to do?Roy_G_Biv said:
What chaos did Obama leave behind?isam said:Watching Obama last night on the BBC (free half hour of advertising for his book you might say) he did come across so well. Cameron and Blair did too in their time, but I think why these smooth types end up leaving chaos behind is their inability to resist sniping at their more explosive rivals (Trump/Farage/Leave) whilst selling themselves as moderate and reasonable. It pushes people towards the extremes, and I think Starmer is making the same error with Corbyn. It is for the likes of Farage/Trump and Jez to purge, not moderate centrist types
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHckZCxdRkA
https://youtu.be/wC1NGWM8gP81
This discussion has been closed.