The speculation mounts that McConnell could support the impeachment move – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
I think there is a fair chance. It wont be just taxes.Peter_the_Punter said:
You really think he'll do chokey, Yokey?Yokes said:Lets just get this cleared out once and for all.
Trump won 2016 but lost the popular vote against one of the most divisive individuals going in Hillary Clinton
He lost clearly in 2020
In 2024 he can have all the supporters he likes, all he will do is split the right leaning vote and just will not win. He wasn't likely to win in 2020 and didn't, it is not going to be any better for him in 2024 because he is going to trashed for the next 4 years.
Anyway you cant vote for a jailbird.
I'm sure the IRS will go for his throat but they will usually accept financial restitution.
4 -
The thing Kemp must be most furious about is he's done years of solid voter suppression first as Secretary of State and now as Governor and the GOP candidates for Senate and President were so shit they all lost despite the everything he's done.Pulpstar said:
This is just run of the mill GOP voter suppression, harks back to a more innocent time.contrarian said:In non-existent election fraud news, Brian Kemp is so confident Georgia was a clean election that he.....er......wants big changes to mail-in ballot rules.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/kemp-wants-photo-id-georgia?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
I'd be tamping if I was him.0 -
Not going to happen this week then.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
The first part of the contention is spot on: he is being impeached, he probably won't be convicted (although don't underestimate Trump's ability to do something self defeating).rottenborough said:
Depressingly high.solarflare said:What odds on Trump being impeached but not convicted, coming back and winning in 2024 and making it a hat-trick of impeachments in his second term?
Could he win in 2024?
Of course, he could.
But. He'll be four years older. He's not in particularly good physical shape today. He's also clearly less mentally sharp than he was in 2016 (and in turn, that was less sharp than in 2010).
He also faces myriad financial and legal challenges over the next four years. These will sap his strength and his financial resources.
And Cruz and Hawley didn't join "Stop the Steal" to set Trump up for a 2024 election run; they did it so they got first crack at his base.
So, my bet is that Trump is unlikely to run successfully in 2024. Indeed, if you wanted to go with an outside bet, it would have to be on Trump endorsing either Jr or Ivanka, and them winning the nomination.
I also don't think that Trump's historic unpopularity with Independents is going to disappear in the next four years. And were he the nominee, he would again be the best recruiting sergeant for the Democrats could hope for. It would be like the Democrats putting up Hillary again.
I'm therefore going to go for "very small" - i.e. sub 10% - change of Trump Sr returning in 2024. But there has to be a much higher chance of one of his children making a successful run. And you have to think Ivanka, who is massively less voter repellent than Jr or Sr, and who can also point to successes in the Middle East, would be the most likely to take on his mantel.1 -
Not sure that is supposed to have any sway over a 'free and fair' election... the guns bit I mean.Pulpstar said:
Dunno, he's got millions of supporters and they're reasonably well armed.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Zero. Trumpsky is un-re-electable, regardless of outcome of impeachment trialrottenborough said:
Depressingly high.solarflare said:What odds on Trump being impeached but not convicted, coming back and winning in 2024 and making it a hat-trick of impeachments in his second term?
1 -
Agree with you on that.eek said:
Not going to happen this week then.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
No, but it sure as hell does to civil liability. Trump will be buried under litigation by everyone he so much even looked at in a funny way, and the list of those he has genuinely cheated is so long that even his great grand kids will not be free of it. I believe the precedent is Numbers 14:18Luckyguy1983 said:
That makes no difference to the nature of forgiveness.Nigelb said:
It does.Luckyguy1983 said:
No it doesn't. Forgiveness doesn't have anything to do with the recipient.kle4 said:
Forgiveness requires acknowledgement of wrongdoing, at the very least.IanB2 said:After a series of Rep speeches from which you’d deduce that Trump has done nothing wrong, the Rep minority leader is now citing Jefferson and calling for forgiveness and unity.
Pardons, for example, as the US Supreme Court has ruled, carry an imputation of guillt, and acceptance of them a confession of it.
‘The Lord is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.’
0 -
At 2.64m people with at least 1 dose received were at 5% of the 53m people who are eligible for this.1
-
No, but even the most optimistic suggestion was up to 20 AFTER last week, so a struggle to get to 17 is not absurd. For whatever reason McConnell is at least keeping the door open, so there's hope.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Could you have imagined ANY voting to convict BEFORE last week?Peter_the_Punter said:MrEd said:
Oh for sure, it was just the NYT was building up hopes that McConnell would push this through. If it is only 6 House members voting for impeachment, that is quite poor and it might make McConnell think again. As said before, I don't see a huge amount of upside for McConnell in pushing this and there is a lot of potential downside.Peter_the_Punter said:
They can hear the matter after inauguration. It kind of makes sense.MrEd said:
But the NYT told us McConnell was going to support impeachment so it must be true.....Yokes said:Well McConnell might be he aint going to be rushing. Apparently he has told his Democrat counterpart he has no intention of coming early to the Senate to hear it so that is probably that for a slightly early bath for Trump.
Can't see 16 or more Republican Senators voting against Trump, whether proceedings come early or late. I suppose there's always a chance that the longer it is left the greater the chance that something really awful crawls out of the wordwork, but then how much worse than inciting insurrection could it get?MrEd said:
Oh for sure, it was just the NYT was building up hopes that McConnell would push this through. If it is only 6 House members voting for impeachment, that is quite poor and it might make McConnell think again. As said before, I don't see a huge amount of upside for McConnell in pushing this and there is a lot of potential downside.Peter_the_Punter said:
They can hear the matter after inauguration. It kind of makes sense.MrEd said:
But the NYT told us McConnell was going to support impeachment so it must be true.....Yokes said:Well McConnell might be he aint going to be rushing. Apparently he has told his Democrat counterpart he has no intention of coming early to the Senate to hear it so that is probably that for a slightly early bath for Trump.
0 -
They already are.eek said:
No company is going to willingly send an empty container across the channel unless absolutely completely necessary.RochdalePioneers said:Also: "But another haulage insider reckons the bureaucracy of the scheme doesn't recognise how supply chains really work: “This is just embarrassing, and won’t work. Another knee-jerk scheme, designed for a press release"
You are now paying for 2 expensive journeys for 1 transport load.
https://twitter.com/ITVJoel/status/1348691346727559168?s=190 -
Anyone know what Tom Cotton is up too? I had expected him to join Hawly and Cruz in being wankers.0
-
Has nothing to do with wish "to develop any kind of argument" but rather wish of members to get their 30-second sound bite for their local TV stations.IanB2 said:What a strange debate this is. They both know the outcome, yet each side is guarding its remaining time (about 8 minutes each now), trying to let the other go first, and doling out their allocation in 30 second rations to speakers on their own side. Which is barely enough time to develop any kind of argument and many speakers are cut off by the chair. For the listener it makes for a very unsatisfactory debate, and I can only assume the politicians are doing it so they can issue a press release to their state media.
3 -
No. And I'm mildly surprised that six Rep. House representatives have already indicated their intention to support impeachment. If the figure gets above ten I will be impressed and might qualify my view that the 2/3 majority in the Senate will be attained.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Could you have imagined ANY voting to convict BEFORE last week?Peter_the_Punter said:MrEd said:
Oh for sure, it was just the NYT was building up hopes that McConnell would push this through. If it is only 6 House members voting for impeachment, that is quite poor and it might make McConnell think again. As said before, I don't see a huge amount of upside for McConnell in pushing this and there is a lot of potential downside.Peter_the_Punter said:
They can hear the matter after inauguration. It kind of makes sense.MrEd said:
But the NYT told us McConnell was going to support impeachment so it must be true.....Yokes said:Well McConnell might be he aint going to be rushing. Apparently he has told his Democrat counterpart he has no intention of coming early to the Senate to hear it so that is probably that for a slightly early bath for Trump.
Can't see 16 or more Republican Senators voting against Trump, whether proceedings come early or late. I suppose there's always a chance that the longer it is left the greater the chance that something really awful crawls out of the wordwork, but then how much worse than inciting insurrection could it get?MrEd said:
Oh for sure, it was just the NYT was building up hopes that McConnell would push this through. If it is only 6 House members voting for impeachment, that is quite poor and it might make McConnell think again. As said before, I don't see a huge amount of upside for McConnell in pushing this and there is a lot of potential downside.Peter_the_Punter said:
They can hear the matter after inauguration. It kind of makes sense.MrEd said:
But the NYT told us McConnell was going to support impeachment so it must be true.....Yokes said:Well McConnell might be he aint going to be rushing. Apparently he has told his Democrat counterpart he has no intention of coming early to the Senate to hear it so that is probably that for a slightly early bath for Trump.
0 -
I've started watching Designated Survivor with Kiefer Sutherland on the firestick.
Seems an appropriate quasi-political action-drama right now, if a couple of years old.
Not bad, actually.5 -
I give it 18 months until rejoining the single market is mainstreamRochdalePioneers said:
"The new plan would be triggered only when waiting times outside Dover reached eight hours or more and the loads delivered to UK supermarkets had fallen below 75 per cent of expectations for two consecutive days."rottenborough said:
Coming to a Daily Mail front page any day now:Scott_xP said:
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1349418743252848642
Calling Philip...5 -
Cotton has been working to disassociate, even before the Putsch, and even more so in the aftermath.Alistair said:Anyone know what Tom Cotton is up too? I had expected him to join Hawly and Cruz in being wankers.
Cause he knows that the "brilliance" of Calm Down Cruz and Bloody Hands Hawley has landed both into a slough of political & moral despond that may well prove to be bottomless - God willing!0 -
Agreed. I think Ivanka is the Trump dynasty's last, best hope. Don Jr and Eric are way too much cookie-cutter smug, rich, white kids to appeal to the base and simply don't have the smarts to overcome that: Ivanka is clearly the brightest of the Trump family including père. That said, I don't rate Ivanka's chances too highly either. I think there's an in-built misogyny to the base that will handicap her, and, frankly, she has something about her that is just a little bit creepy.rcs1000 said:
The first part of the contention is spot on: he is being impeached, he probably won't be convicted (although don't underestimate Trump's ability to do something self defeating).rottenborough said:
Depressingly high.solarflare said:What odds on Trump being impeached but not convicted, coming back and winning in 2024 and making it a hat-trick of impeachments in his second term?
Could he win in 2024?
Of course, he could.
But. He'll be four years older. He's not in particularly good physical shape today. He's also clearly less mentally sharp than he was in 2016 (and in turn, that was less sharp than in 2010).
He also faces myriad financial and legal challenges over the next four years. These will sap his strength and his financial resources.
And Cruz and Hawley didn't join "Stop the Steal" to set Trump up for a 2024 election run; they did it so they got first crack at his base.
So, my bet is that Trump is unlikely to run successfully in 2024. Indeed, if you wanted to go with an outside bet, it would have to be on Trump endorsing either Jr or Ivanka, and them winning the nomination.
I also don't think that Trump's historic unpopularity with Independents is going to disappear in the next four years. And were he the nominee, he would again be the best recruiting sergeant for the Democrats could hope for. It would be like the Democrats putting up Hillary again.
I'm therefore going to go for "very small" - i.e. sub 10% - change of Trump Sr returning in 2024. But there has to be a much higher chance of one of his children making a successful run. And you have to think Ivanka, who is massively less voter repellent than Jr or Sr, and who can also point to successes in the Middle East, would be the most likely to take on his mantel.1 -
We are constantly told that the EU sells more to us than we do to them so surely this is the normal state of affairs?eek said:
No company is going to willingly send an empty container across the channel unless absolutely completely necessary.RochdalePioneers said:Also: "But another haulage insider reckons the bureaucracy of the scheme doesn't recognise how supply chains really work: “This is just embarrassing, and won’t work. Another knee-jerk scheme, designed for a press release"
You are now paying for 2 expensive journeys for 1 transport load.0 -
As I was thinking. But that doesn’t explain all the tap dancing over who goes next.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Has nothing to do with wish "to develop any kind of argument" but rather wish of members to get their 30-second sound bite for their local TV stations.IanB2 said:What a strange debate this is. They both know the outcome, yet each side is guarding its remaining time (about 8 minutes each now), trying to let the other go first, and doling out their allocation in 30 second rations to speakers on their own side. Which is barely enough time to develop any kind of argument and many speakers are cut off by the chair. For the listener it makes for a very unsatisfactory debate, and I can only assume the politicians are doing it so they can issue a press release to their state media.
Alternatively it is some kind of weird party game where the side that has the last thirty seconds left at the end is declared the winner.0 -
Think you are correct.Peter_the_Punter said:
No. And I'm mildly surprised that six Rep. House representatives have already indicated their intention to support impeachment. If the figure gets above ten I will be impressed and might qualify my view that the 2/3 majority in the Senate will be attained.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Could you have imagined ANY voting to convict BEFORE last week?Peter_the_Punter said:MrEd said:
Oh for sure, it was just the NYT was building up hopes that McConnell would push this through. If it is only 6 House members voting for impeachment, that is quite poor and it might make McConnell think again. As said before, I don't see a huge amount of upside for McConnell in pushing this and there is a lot of potential downside.Peter_the_Punter said:
They can hear the matter after inauguration. It kind of makes sense.MrEd said:
But the NYT told us McConnell was going to support impeachment so it must be true.....Yokes said:Well McConnell might be he aint going to be rushing. Apparently he has told his Democrat counterpart he has no intention of coming early to the Senate to hear it so that is probably that for a slightly early bath for Trump.
Can't see 16 or more Republican Senators voting against Trump, whether proceedings come early or late. I suppose there's always a chance that the longer it is left the greater the chance that something really awful crawls out of the wordwork, but then how much worse than inciting insurrection could it get?MrEd said:
Oh for sure, it was just the NYT was building up hopes that McConnell would push this through. If it is only 6 House members voting for impeachment, that is quite poor and it might make McConnell think again. As said before, I don't see a huge amount of upside for McConnell in pushing this and there is a lot of potential downside.Peter_the_Punter said:
They can hear the matter after inauguration. It kind of makes sense.MrEd said:
But the NYT told us McConnell was going to support impeachment so it must be true.....Yokes said:Well McConnell might be he aint going to be rushing. Apparently he has told his Democrat counterpart he has no intention of coming early to the Senate to hear it so that is probably that for a slightly early bath for Trump.
0 -
Not to mention possibility that she is implicated in her daddy's criminal enterprises, with consequent legal jeopardy.rpjs said:
Agreed. I think Ivanka is the Trump dynasty's last, best hope. Don Jr and Eric are way too much cookie-cutter smug, rich, white kids to appeal to the base and simply don't have the smarts to overcome that: Ivanka is clearly the brightest of the Trump family including père. That said, I don't rate Ivanka's chances too highly either. I think there's an in-built misogyny to the base that will handicap her, and, frankly, she has something about her that is just a little bit creepy.rcs1000 said:
The first part of the contention is spot on: he is being impeached, he probably won't be convicted (although don't underestimate Trump's ability to do something self defeating).rottenborough said:
Depressingly high.solarflare said:What odds on Trump being impeached but not convicted, coming back and winning in 2024 and making it a hat-trick of impeachments in his second term?
Could he win in 2024?
Of course, he could.
But. He'll be four years older. He's not in particularly good physical shape today. He's also clearly less mentally sharp than he was in 2016 (and in turn, that was less sharp than in 2010).
He also faces myriad financial and legal challenges over the next four years. These will sap his strength and his financial resources.
And Cruz and Hawley didn't join "Stop the Steal" to set Trump up for a 2024 election run; they did it so they got first crack at his base.
So, my bet is that Trump is unlikely to run successfully in 2024. Indeed, if you wanted to go with an outside bet, it would have to be on Trump endorsing either Jr or Ivanka, and them winning the nomination.
I also don't think that Trump's historic unpopularity with Independents is going to disappear in the next four years. And were he the nominee, he would again be the best recruiting sergeant for the Democrats could hope for. It would be like the Democrats putting up Hillary again.
I'm therefore going to go for "very small" - i.e. sub 10% - change of Trump Sr returning in 2024. But there has to be a much higher chance of one of his children making a successful run. And you have to think Ivanka, who is massively less voter repellent than Jr or Sr, and who can also point to successes in the Middle East, would be the most likely to take on his mantel.1 -
Not from Al Capone!Peter_the_Punter said:
You really think he'll do chokey, Yokey?Yokes said:Lets just get this cleared out once and for all.
Trump won 2016 but lost the popular vote against one of the most divisive individuals going in Hillary Clinton
He lost clearly in 2020
In 2024 he can have all the supporters he likes, all he will do is split the right leaning vote and just will not win. He wasn't likely to win in 2020 and didn't, it is not going to be any better for him in 2024 because he is going to trashed for the next 4 years.
Anyway you cant vote for a jailbird.
I'm sure the IRS will go for his throat but they will usually accept financial restitution.1 -
Even the head of the Gurdwara announced it was against changing the name to Guru Nanak, saying it was offensive to the Sikh community.
Davinderpal Singh Kooner, executive member of the Sikh temple, previously urged Cllr Julian Bell to 'immediately stop' the naming of the road.
He highlighted that there were no roads in the UK called 'Jesus Christ Road', and no others called 'Prophet Mohammed Road'.
He said: 'Please stop offending the Sikh community on behest of some misguided councillors.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9142391/Row-erupts-decision-rename-road-honoured-British-general-founder-Sikhism.html0 -
Yeah. All of that.rpjs said:
Agreed. I think Ivanka is the Trump dynasty's last, best hope. Don Jr and Eric are way too much cookie-cutter smug, rich, white kids to appeal to the base and simply don't have the smarts to overcome that: Ivanka is clearly the brightest of the Trump family including père. That said, I don't rate Ivanka's chances too highly either. I think there's an in-built misogyny to the base that will handicap her, and, frankly, she has something about her that is just a little bit creepy.rcs1000 said:
The first part of the contention is spot on: he is being impeached, he probably won't be convicted (although don't underestimate Trump's ability to do something self defeating).rottenborough said:
Depressingly high.solarflare said:What odds on Trump being impeached but not convicted, coming back and winning in 2024 and making it a hat-trick of impeachments in his second term?
Could he win in 2024?
Of course, he could.
But. He'll be four years older. He's not in particularly good physical shape today. He's also clearly less mentally sharp than he was in 2016 (and in turn, that was less sharp than in 2010).
He also faces myriad financial and legal challenges over the next four years. These will sap his strength and his financial resources.
And Cruz and Hawley didn't join "Stop the Steal" to set Trump up for a 2024 election run; they did it so they got first crack at his base.
So, my bet is that Trump is unlikely to run successfully in 2024. Indeed, if you wanted to go with an outside bet, it would have to be on Trump endorsing either Jr or Ivanka, and them winning the nomination.
I also don't think that Trump's historic unpopularity with Independents is going to disappear in the next four years. And were he the nominee, he would again be the best recruiting sergeant for the Democrats could hope for. It would be like the Democrats putting up Hillary again.
I'm therefore going to go for "very small" - i.e. sub 10% - change of Trump Sr returning in 2024. But there has to be a much higher chance of one of his children making a successful run. And you have to think Ivanka, who is massively less voter repellent than Jr or Sr, and who can also point to successes in the Middle East, would be the most likely to take on his mantel.0 -
The government have signed a deal that doesn't work on a basic practical level. Something will have to change and change fairly quickly. Whatever the political will is to celebrate the wonders of our Brexit deal, they will find it hard to do when managing queue runners to get trucks through the border in a mere 8 hours or more.Cicero said:
I give it 18 months until rejoining the single market is mainstreamRochdalePioneers said:
"The new plan would be triggered only when waiting times outside Dover reached eight hours or more and the loads delivered to UK supermarkets had fallen below 75 per cent of expectations for two consecutive days."rottenborough said:
Coming to a Daily Mail front page any day now:Scott_xP said:
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1349418743252848642
Calling Philip...0 -
His 538 disapproval rating after 4 years is rocketing and already the worst of any president ever, and as that is a lagging indicator (including several old polls) it looks set to rise further. An electoral asset he isn't.solarflare said:What odds on Trump being impeached but not convicted, coming back and winning in 2024 and making it a hat-trick of impeachments in his second term?
He does stand a chance of being impeached, given that following McConnell's lead the Senate Republicans generally faced him down last Wednesday, in contrast to those in the House. Also, that vote will take place later in a context where there will be no question of removing him from office prematurely, and Republicans in the Senate will find it easier to jump on board in those circumstances.
If he isn't, the Democrats have the votes to use the 14th Amendment to disqualify him, and I also think there will be defections from the Republican caucus in those circumstances.
He might well flee abroad to escape the criminal charges that are coming his way, both from the feds and NY state. If not, he stands a real prospect of being a convicted felon by then.
And even then he has to be physically fit enough to stand. He will be 78 next time around, if he's not pushing up the daisies.
So the chances of Trump himself making a comeback are slim.0 -
Yes it is. Not sure it makes any difference one way or another but yes there are large numbers of containers that are stored and then sent back across the channel, normally by boat as there is no issue with time. A mate of mine has made a very long and reasonably well paid career as a driver going round the country picking up empty containers to be taken back to Felixstowe and sent back across to Europe. A lot do get reused of course but there has long been a basic imbalance that cannot be corrected without transporting empty containers.partypoliticalorphan said:
We are constantly told that the EU sells more to us than we do to them so surely this is the normal state of affairs?eek said:
No company is going to willingly send an empty container across the channel unless absolutely completely necessary.RochdalePioneers said:Also: "But another haulage insider reckons the bureaucracy of the scheme doesn't recognise how supply chains really work: “This is just embarrassing, and won’t work. Another knee-jerk scheme, designed for a press release"
You are now paying for 2 expensive journeys for 1 transport load.0 -
A clever riposte by the usually dismal Johnson saying Rashford was doing a good job holding the government to account compared to the feeble efforts of the leader of the opposition.
I agree with him.
Starmer doesn't get this politics lark. Trailing along behind Rashford doesn't cut it.3 -
0
-
Not sure if this’ll help.RochdalePioneers said:Boris Johnson the "greased piglet"
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1349376434452758530
https://twitter.com/politicsforali/status/1349442484993220611?s=210 -
Because of the imbalance in physical goods (not going to get into the non-tangible thing) - there is an enormous imbalance in terms of full containers coming in and empty ones going out.partypoliticalorphan said:
We are constantly told that the EU sells more to us than we do to them so surely this is the normal state of affairs?eek said:
No company is going to willingly send an empty container across the channel unless absolutely completely necessary.RochdalePioneers said:Also: "But another haulage insider reckons the bureaucracy of the scheme doesn't recognise how supply chains really work: “This is just embarrassing, and won’t work. Another knee-jerk scheme, designed for a press release"
You are now paying for 2 expensive journeys for 1 transport load.
The trade with China for example. All that tat on eBay and Amazon.0 -
New Thread
0 -
One wonders about the non-supermarkets, too.RochdalePioneers said:
"The new plan would be triggered only when waiting times outside Dover reached eight hours or more and the loads delivered to UK supermarkets had fallen below 75 per cent of expectations for two consecutive days."rottenborough said:
Coming to a Daily Mail front page any day now:Scott_xP said:
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1349418743252848642
Calling Philip...0 -
Re: US House vote on Articles of Impeachment, here in WA State will be interesting to see how the three Republicans from our delegation vote:
> Jaime Herrera Beutler of WA CD03 (Vancouver & southwest WA) has just said she will vote for impeachment.
> Dan Newhouse of WA CD04 (Yakima & most of Columbia River basin east of Cascade Mountains) has also said he will vote to impeach.
> Cathy McMorris Rodgers of WA CD05 (Spokane and far eastern WA)
Note that Newhouse and McMorris Rodgers (who is member of GOP House leadership) both supported the amicus curiae brief in support of Trumpsky's effort to overturn the electoral vote; Herrera Beutler did not.
Further note that, after the Trumpsky Putsch, all three voted AGAINST objections to counting both AZ & PA EVs.
Beyond that is fact that Newhouse and McMorris Rodgers are both UNLIKELY to ever run for US Senator or Governor. Why? Because it's been well over half a century since ANYONE from Eastern WA was elected to top statewide office.
Whereas Herrera Beutler is from Western WA, thus giving her way better chances. She is only 42 years old but has just been re-elected to her fifth term as congresswoman. She is also Latina, one of the reasons why she was talent-spotted by the GOP in the first place; she worked for Cathy McMorris Rodgers before running for the legislature then Congress.
For what it's worth, Just days ago during GOP House caucus meeting, JHB called out a QAnon congresswoman from Colorado for tweeting the location of members during the Putsch.
In interests of semi-full disclosure, yours truly has some experience with campaigns AGAINST Herrera Beutler. She is a conservative, and a devout evangelical. But she is NOT a wing-nut. And certain NOT a Putinist.
Personally think that her decision is LESS about political calculation, and more about personal conviction. AND same goes - even more so - for Newhouse1 -
You could pick anuy argument.HYUFD said:
No, in Scotland the main objective is to beat the SNP.Carnyx said:
If you are a good Unionist you wouldn't be doing a Tory Ian Murray to your own party's votes and parliamentary representations.HYUFD said:
It is different in Scotland, the Tories, the LDs, Labour, Alliance for Unity, Reform UK etc all come under the anti SNP and Unionist umbrellaCarnyx said:
Of course, you'll be saying that in Epping to your local party - no problem if the local Brexiter Party candidate actually wins.HYUFD said:
Reform UK will likely not stand for constitiuency seats and on the list they might even pick up a few Unionist MSP seats themselves so no harm thereTheuniondivvie said:
Been a couple of opinion pieces on how Farage’s Reform UK mob can take a chunk out of the SCons. Apparently the lad himself is coming up to campaign before the May election, presumably he’ll be avoiding Remoaner Central Edinburgh this time.Carnyx said:
Douglas Ross in Moray?! He's got am important fishing component in his area. And that's just one, before you startt counting the list MSPs - mor eimportant for Tories anyway.HYUFD said:
That is in effect actually only David Duguid, no other Scottish Tory MP or Scottish Tory constituency MSP has a major Scottish fishing port in their constituencyCarnyx said:
When it's the Scottish trawler bosses and the P and J you better start listening if you are a ScoTory MP/MSP worried about his/her seat.Luckyguy1983 said:
TUD has certainly been a busy boy, getting around all those thousands of people.Carnyx said:
Chust so, as old Peter Handy used to say. The seagulls will be complaining next, at this rate.Theuniondivvie said:
The list of folk that have just not understood how great the Deal is for fishing so far:Carnyx said:
Mr Johnson's going to have to do better than make up moans about the SNP in PMQ and think they are sufficient, esp. when it's folk such as Alistair Carmichael doing the attacking. But hey, they're all Jocks perhaps.Theuniondivvie said:Nat mouthpiece the Evening Express there.
https://twitter.com/EveningExpress/status/1349385856386166785?s=20
Nice nativity though.
https://twitter.com/VictoriaPrentis/status/1342208753601564674
Fishermen
Fishermens' associations
Fish merchants
Fish exporters
Shellfish exporters
The P&J
The Evening Express
Mphm. Did we include, in the exporters, the processors, incl. Arbroath Smokie and finnan haddie smokers? Or do they emply too many furriners and NOT COUNT?
Unless he's just referring to
'a' fisherman
'a' head of a fishermens' association
'a' fish merchant
'a' fish exporter
'a' shelfish exporter
etc.
The doctrine of "piss off if you didn't vote for us" is not going to garner enough votes to win next time, either.
Also - it's not just the fisherfolk who will vote against Torydom if they think the Brexit has been betrayed. Pasrtly those dependent on the fishing industry (including wider sectors such as housing and food) and partly their sympathisers in the elderly retirees for instance. I'm very interested to see what happens with the party - whatever it's called - now that Michelle Ballantyne has joined. I'd be very surprised if Eyemouth and its hinterland vote Tory if the currtent situation is not alleviated.
Just think about it for a moment - you are doing down your own party.
That is a sacking offence.
Though in most realistic Unionist target seats which require a less than 5% swing to gain them the best way to do that is to vote Tory anyway, certainly on the constituency vote.
You are a unionist. You believe in the homogeneity of the UK. YOu should be fighting for your party as much in Scotland as in Epping. I think that is positively treasonous of you.
It's come to a pretty pass when I show a greater belief in the Union and the UK's constitution, such as it is, than you do.0 -
Are we watching the slow slide into Torydom? Drapes himself in the Union Jack writes for The Telegraph votes for Brexit....the man's becoming a laughing stock.Theuniondivvie said:
Not sure if this’ll help.RochdalePioneers said:Boris Johnson the "greased piglet"
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1349376434452758530
https://twitter.com/politicsforali/status/1349442484993220611?s=212 -
NEW THREAD
0 -
And that's what critics of critics of the government don't seem to get.RochdalePioneers said:
The government have signed a deal that doesn't work on a basic practical level. Something will have to change and change fairly quickly. Whatever the political will is to celebrate the wonders of our Brexit deal, they will find it hard to do when managing queue runners to get trucks through the border in a mere 8 hours or more.Cicero said:
I give it 18 months until rejoining the single market is mainstreamRochdalePioneers said:
"The new plan would be triggered only when waiting times outside Dover reached eight hours or more and the loads delivered to UK supermarkets had fallen below 75 per cent of expectations for two consecutive days."rottenborough said:
Coming to a Daily Mail front page any day now:Scott_xP said:
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1349418743252848642
Calling Philip...
In saying "The likely consequence of government action X is bad thing Y", it's not that people want bad thing Y to happen; it's just that seems the most likely thing to happen, based on current understanding not how things work.
It's also not about secretly or subconsciously wanting to reverse X. You can accept the democratic mandate for X, accept that X has happened or that it's too late to undo X and still want some proper mitigations against its side effects.
And that's where BoJo's breezy confidence that all setbacks can be solved by getting a new job or new squeeze really grates. Because whatever the issue, the government has set in train massive things, with no preparation for what seems likely to be about to hit us.1 -
FPT Re: US House vote on Articles of Impeachment, here in WA State will be interesting to see how the three Republicans from our delegation vote:
> Jaime Herrera Beutler of WA CD03 (Vancouver & southwest WA) has just said she will vote for impeachment.
> Dan Newhouse of WA CD04 (Yakima & most of Columbia River basin east of Cascade Mountains) has also said he will vote to impeach.
> Cathy McMorris Rodgers of WA CD05 (Spokane and far eastern WA)
Note that Newhouse and McMorris Rodgers (who is member of GOP House leadership) both supported the amicus curiae brief in support of Trumpsky's effort to overturn the electoral vote; Herrera Beutler did not.
Further note that, after the Trumpsky Putsch, all three voted AGAINST objections to counting both AZ & PA EVs.
Beyond that is fact that Newhouse and McMorris Rodgers are both UNLIKELY to ever run for US Senator or Governor. Why? Because it's been well over half a century since ANYONE from Eastern WA was elected to top statewide office.
Whereas Herrera Beutler is from Western WA, thus giving her way better chances. She is only 42 years old but has just been re-elected to her fifth term as congresswoman. She is also Latina, one of the reasons why she was talent-spotted by the GOP in the first place; she worked for Cathy McMorris Rodgers before running for the legislature then Congress.
For what it's worth, Just days ago during GOP House caucus meeting, JHB called out a QAnon congresswoman from Colorado for tweeting the location of members during the Putsch.
In interests of semi-full disclosure, yours truly has some experience with campaigns AGAINST Herrera Beutler. She is a conservative, and a devout evangelical. But she is NOT a wing-nut. And certain NOT a Putinist.
Personally think that her decision is LESS about political calculation, and more about personal conviction. AND same goes - even more so - for Newhouse1
This discussion has been closed.