Its almost as if the principal owner appearing in a criminal court is not a good thing for the stock.
Trump Social "stock" just a means to an end . . . which is for various international bad-actors to shovel (yet more) money in Donald Trump's direction . . . in hope of future non-stock dividends.
At least that's MY hypothesis.
Anybody think that is NOT happening, or NOT the main aim of this "free enterprise" scam?
@rcs1000 and I were discussing this last night. He made the excellent point that losses on these shares make your contributions to DJT tax deductible.
The slight flaw is that the capitalisation of the company is falling fast, down to $3.26bn now, making Trump's share $1.9bn. If it continues to fall at this rate there will be very little left for him to sell in a few months time.
Even at a tenth of the current price his holding (114.8m shares) would be worth nearly $300m
And if it fell so far, the price would be far easier to manipulate by his billionaire backers.
At the current rate it will be down to a tenth of the current price in just over a week.
Is it possible to short these shares, or buy a put option or something?
Yes, but it is prohibitively expensive to do so. You need to borrow stock from an existing shareholder and pay them a fee. The problem is that this commits the shareholder to holding onto the stock for the period of the agreement so the fees have been 500% or more of the initial price to offset the expected capital loss. Not a game for amateurs I suspect.
It now looks likely that an ice-free Arctic in September is inevitable and could happen pretty much any year from now, though might not happen for a few decades.
Where we can make a difference is in reducing how long the ice-free period becomes each year. If we can stop it from extending into July and June then we can reduce the extent of the positive feedback, where an ice-free Arctic absorbs the summer Arctic sunlight.
The sooner we get going with those pumps that were to spray sea water onto the existing ice and thicken it the better. Its going to get harder and harder as the ice recedes.
The eventual full melting is inevitable but the albedo effect in summer is already much reduced and vertical mixing as a result of the Atlanticisation of the Arctic ocean is already increasing, but the closer we get to zero ice, the more marginal the additional positive feedback. We may just need to accept that the Arctic ice is gone, long term.
There was a period in the early-to-mid 2010s when it looked like it had already entered a death spiral and would melt out much more quickly than models, but that was weather. We had a series of summers with negative Arctic Oscillation and high pressure in all the right places for rapid melting. The rate of change has reverted back to the longer term trend since because we've had a few years with a cloudy stormy Arctic basin.
The most depressing aspect of cryosphere melting is the much more visible loss of glaciers in our mountains. The Alps have already lost dozens of small glaciers and ice patches and most valley glaciers have shrunk to a shadow of their former selves. It's even worse in parts of the Andes, and of course Africa which may well be entirely glacier free within a decade or two.
The one part of Europe where glaciers haven't been retreating, bizarrely, is the relatively low and wonderfully named Accursed Mountains in Albania. It's so wet there, and has got wetter, that the rate of winter accumulation (something mad like 10 metres a season in the glacial corries) is keeping up with the rate of summer melting.
I find your tears on this topic rather crocodile-esque, given that sea temperatures have seen an unprecedented rise recently in response to legislation to alter maritime fuel, and you are against looking for solutions to reverse the problem, preferring to (as I recall) 'rip off the plaster'.
Responding to your disinformation on anything remotely environmental really is whack-a-mole time, you never seem to read or take on board anything people write in response and then the next time the topic arises up you pop with the same talking points. You've used the crocodile tears term before too - another rhetorical device to question the motivations of the writer. It's bloody frustrating but perhaps that's the point. It reminds me of similarly circular "discussions" with climate sceptics back in the heyday of Whattsupwithhat around 2007-2013.
You may recall, but probably don't (won't), the twin issues of maritime sulphur pollution hiding at best a few years' of underlying warming, and the hundreds of thousands of people who die prematurely as a direct result of maritime transport emissions.
Arguing we should combat a risk you don't actually believe in by emitting more pollution is simply a talking point designed to obfuscate. If you do honestly think albedo-forcing should be in the geoengineering toolkit against climate change, and it's a reasonable option to consider, there are several technologies out there that don't involve emitting toxic soot and tropospheric sulphates.
I'm not clear on this Rayner business either. Dodging CGT on the sale of a property - I thought this is what she's being accused of. A matter between her and HMRC. So what are the police looking at?
I would think that they are looking at the possibility of criminality, obviously. While it is difficult for you to grasp, it is entirely possible that like anyone, a Labour MP could be guilty of this, but is, like anyone, innocent until proven guilty.
I would hope that the HMRC are looking closely at CGT. It is my understanding that evasion of CGT is a criminal offence.
She is definitely IMO guilty of monumental hypocrisy. Whatever she says to cover her guilty arse about not being against the right to buy, she is a senior member of a party that has opposed it in vociferous terms in the past. If she alone had benefitted from the policy that would be one thing, but the reality is that she and her husband/partner have gamed the system twice. She is a massive hypocrite, but Labour supporters are as determined as MAGAs to suggest that it must be a "witch hunt".
Ah so a point about hypocrisy. It isn't hypocrisy to benefit from something (in this case right-to-buy) that you are politically opposed to. Where it becomes hypocrisy is if you criticize others for doing the same thing. So, take private schools. If I say I think the country would be better off without them but I send my child to one - that's not hypocrisy. But if I slag off other people for using private schools when there I am doing it myself - that IS.
Has anyone ever had gruel? I haven't, and I don't know anyone that has. And you don't often see it in restaurants these days, as a main or even a starter - "Gruel"
Also, why don't they just thicken it a bit? With some cornflour? Does it have to be thin? The gruel industry just needs some imagination and it could make a major comeback
If you thicken it you couldn't drink it. Gruel is a food consisting of some type of cereal—such as ground oats, wheat, rye, or rice—heated or boiled in water or milk. It is a thinner version of porridge that may be more often drunk rather than eaten. ..
Think of it as a very boring smoothie.
I’m reminded about Grape Nuts. They have been extremely popular as a breakfast cereal in the US. The one thing you can say about Grape Nuts is that they contain neither grapes nor nuts.
"created in Battle Creek, Michigan, by Charles W Post, who also thought up the rather unusual name" (that's from memory - I was big into them as a kid once I graduated from soggy rice krispies or cornflakes). Haven't had them in years, though.
I have them most days as a top-up to muesli (I only need sandals and I can qualify to be a LibDem). They're amazingly expensive for the small packets, but still quite distinctive.
I love grape nuts, and I don't quite know why. I generally eat them with raisins and a small spoonful of sugar.
The only other cereal I really like is Weetabix (also with raisins). I could never stand Shredded Wheat, and am not a massive fan of porridge.
I enjoy them immensely, but find them hard to find.
Its almost as if the principal owner appearing in a criminal court is not a good thing for the stock.
Trump Social "stock" just a means to an end . . . which is for various international bad-actors to shovel (yet more) money in Donald Trump's direction . . . in hope of future non-stock dividends.
At least that's MY hypothesis.
Anybody think that is NOT happening, or NOT the main aim of this "free enterprise" scam?
@rcs1000 and I were discussing this last night. He made the excellent point that losses on these shares make your contributions to DJT tax deductible.
The slight flaw is that the capitalisation of the company is falling fast, down to $3.26bn now, making Trump's share $1.9bn. If it continues to fall at this rate there will be very little left for him to sell in a few months time.
Even at a tenth of the current price his holding (114.8m shares) would be worth nearly $300m
And if it fell so far, the price would be far easier to manipulate by his billionaire backers.
At the current rate it will be down to a tenth of the current price in just over a week.
Stock prices don't usually move in straight lines; though DJT is challenging that truism.
Its a really weird stock. On fundamentals its value is probably a maximum of 1% of its current value and most likely nothing at all. There seem to be a lot of people who are determined to buy more shares to show their loyalty etc and a lot of market based traders who see this as a one way street. Its not impossible the former will prove the latter wrong for a considerable period.
Our Ange is Labour's not-so-secret weapon to win back the Red Wall. I can't imagine why there's a number of right-wing chaps on here (and elsewhere) who find a bolshie, working-class woman who speaks her mind, doesn't take any prisoners, didn't have a private education (or much of an education at all until later in life) a bit threatening to their sense of manhood. Baffling.
This vaguely rightish man can see that she is a desperately needed splash of colour amongst the dull grey suits of the shadow cabinet and very much an asset for the dull grey Starmer. She is well worth fighting for from Labour's perspective and is almost certainly going to come out of this ok.
I notice a recent poll looks difficult for Andy Street and assuming he loses in May, what chance of him standing in GE24, winning, and being the next leader of the conservative party
Haven't candidates already been selected? So someone else would have to stand down as candidate. And he'd need to find a winnable seat!
No - there are a large number of conservative GE seats available
I notice a recent poll looks difficult for Andy Street and assuming he loses in May, what chance of him standing in GE24, winning, and being the next leader of the conservative party
Haven't candidates already been selected? So someone else would have to stand down as candidate. And he'd need to find a winnable seat!
No - there are a large number of conservative GE seats available
Quite an interesting conversation with the nurse at the diabetic clinic this afternoon - she expects their Type I Diabetics using insulin pumps to increase from around 230 to nearly 1000 over the next several years, given that NICE Guidance has been changed to allow essentially all Type Is to use a hybrid closed loop insulin pump (*) from now on.
Talking, they are seeing population level improvements in diabetic health, and children have been widely using insulin pumps for some time now.
Also interesting points about success of "suggest you stop the weekday drinking, sort out your diet, and start walking a dog" early interventions with people getting Type II diabetes.
* That means one that adjusts insulin flow based on a combination live measurement of blood glucose level and information the diabetic inputs based on carb content of the current food being consumed. It makes effective management of Type I diabetes more straightforward for the individual.
Our Ange is Labour's not-so-secret weapon to win back the Red Wall. I can't imagine why there's a number of right-wing chaps on here (and elsewhere) who find a bolshie, working-class woman who speaks her mind, doesn't take any prisoners, didn't have a private education (or much of an education at all until later in life) a bit threatening to their sense of manhood. Baffling.
This vaguely rightish man can see that she is a desperately needed splash of colour amongst the dull grey suits of the shadow cabinet and very much an asset for the dull grey Starmer. She is well worth fighting for from Labour's perspective and is almost certainly going to come out of this ok.
Agreed. Though I would query your 'dull grey suits' of the shadow cabinet. Reeves, Philipson, Haigh, Mahmood, Kendall, Debonnaire, Thornberry, Nandy, Powell and others rarely wear grey suits.
I'm not clear on this Rayner business either. Dodging CGT on the sale of a property - I thought this is what she's being accused of. A matter between her and HMRC. So what are the police looking at?
I would think that they are looking at the possibility of criminality, obviously. While it is difficult for you to grasp, it is entirely possible that like anyone, a Labour MP could be guilty of this, but is, like anyone, innocent until proven guilty.
I would hope that the HMRC are looking closely at CGT. It is my understanding that evasion of CGT is a criminal offence.
She is definitely IMO guilty of monumental hypocrisy. Whatever she says to cover her guilty arse about not being against the right to buy, she is a senior member of a party that has opposed it in vociferous terms in the past. If she alone had benefitted from the policy that would be one thing, but the reality is that she and her husband/partner have gamed the system twice. She is a massive hypocrite, but Labour supporters are as determined as MAGAs to suggest that it must be a "witch hunt".
Ah so a point about hypocrisy. It isn't hypocrisy to benefit from something (in this case right-to-buy) that you are politically opposed to. Where it becomes hypocrisy is if you criticize others for doing the same thing. So, take private schools. If I say I think the country would be better off without them but I send my child to one - that's not hypocrisy. But if I slag off other people for using private schools when there I am doing it myself - that IS.
I think it depends. If you oppose something for ideological reasons and that is the basis for supporting abolition/ban then I think it is hypocritical to be making use of the service in the meantime.
I mean wasn't that pretty much he basis of much of the MPs expenses scandal? Much of what they were doing was not illegal but it was, by the terms of most of the country, immoral. If your ideology says private schools are 'wrong' for ideological reasons then it is hypocritical to make use of them for as long as they still exist.
If on the other hand your policy is to get rid of something because, whilst it might be useful/practical, as a country we just can't afford it, then I don't think it would be hypocritical to make use of it until it is got rid of.
Later today Tommy Tuberville will introduce the VA Abortion Transparency Act of 2024. His bill would require the department of Veterans Affairs to report to congress anytime it performed an abortion. https://twitter.com/DougWahl1/status/1780213551946518581
Nicotine has some upsides: "Nicotine-containing products are sometimes used for the performance-enhancing effects of nicotine on cognition.[59] A 2010 meta-analysis of 41 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies concluded that nicotine or smoking had significant positive effects on aspects of fine motor abilities, alerting and orienting attention, and episodic and working memory." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine Nicotine is an unusual chemical; it kicks up the metabolism -- and helps users concentrate. Caffeine, and many other substance help with the first, and hurt the second.
Years ago, my girlfriend at the time told me that some of her college students, knowing those effects, smoked only during exam week. (Or, if you prefer fictional characters, Sherlock Holmes may have been right to smoke a pipe, when he had a difficult problem to solve.)
(For the record: I tried smoking once and got nothing out of it. I would rather that no one smoked.)
Later today Tommy Tuberville will introduce the VA Abortion Transparency Act of 2024. His bill would require the department of Veterans Affairs to report to congress anytime it performed an abortion. https://twitter.com/DougWahl1/status/1780213551946518581
Apologies if this is a dumb question but what does Veterans Affairs have to do with performing abortions?
Our Ange is Labour's not-so-secret weapon to win back the Red Wall. I can't imagine why there's a number of right-wing chaps on here (and elsewhere) who find a bolshie, working-class woman who speaks her mind, doesn't take any prisoners, didn't have a private education (or much of an education at all until later in life) a bit threatening to their sense of manhood. Baffling.
This vaguely rightish man can see that she is a desperately needed splash of colour amongst the dull grey suits of the shadow cabinet and very much an asset for the dull grey Starmer. She is well worth fighting for from Labour's perspective and is almost certainly going to come out of this ok.
Agreed. Though I would query your 'dull grey suits' of the shadow cabinet. Reeves, Philipson, Haigh, Mahmood, Kendall, Debonnaire, Thornberry, Nandy, Powell and others rarely wear grey suits.
Not near Krasnohorivka, but an advance IN Krasnohorivka. This video was easy to geolocate because of the slag heap and lakes and knowing the area well: the Russian armor moves NW into southern district (south side of the railway) of the city and along Zaliznychna Street. No doubt this mechanized attack and others like it are possible right now because of Ukraine's shortage of artillery shells, due to Republicans' blocking the military aid bill in Congress. https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1780267484542640137
Has anyone ever had gruel? I haven't, and I don't know anyone that has. And you don't often see it in restaurants these days, as a main or even a starter - "Gruel"
Also, why don't they just thicken it a bit? With some cornflour? Does it have to be thin? The gruel industry just needs some imagination and it could make a major comeback
If you thicken it it is not gruel but porridge. SFAICS about four million children in this country live on it, and the thinnest sort. They attend school barefoot because their gruel has been made by boiling their old shoes together with stones, over a rudimentary fire made on a floor of earth. Truss has a plan to double that number.
The Garrick serves it with stewed avocet beak and potato peelings marinaded in preserved limes on alternate Tuesdays.
Our Ange is Labour's not-so-secret weapon to win back the Red Wall. I can't imagine why there's a number of right-wing chaps on here (and elsewhere) who find a bolshie, working-class woman who speaks her mind, doesn't take any prisoners, didn't have a private education (or much of an education at all until later in life) a bit threatening to their sense of manhood. Baffling.
This vaguely rightish man can see that she is a desperately needed splash of colour amongst the dull grey suits of the shadow cabinet and very much an asset for the dull grey Starmer. She is well worth fighting for from Labour's perspective and is almost certainly going to come out of this ok.
Agreed. Though I would query your 'dull grey suits' of the shadow cabinet. Reeves, Philipson, Haigh, Mahmood, Kendall, Debonnaire, Thornberry, Nandy, Powell and others rarely wear grey suits.
Later today Tommy Tuberville will introduce the VA Abortion Transparency Act of 2024. His bill would require the department of Veterans Affairs to report to congress anytime it performed an abortion. https://twitter.com/DougWahl1/status/1780213551946518581
Apologies if this is a dumb question but what does Veterans Affairs have to do with performing abortions?
Isn't that the the USA has a separate comprehensive health system for veterans?
I'm not sure if "NHS for Veterans" is a reasonable term, but that is an impression I get.
Mike Johnson isn't going to allow a vote. The discharge petition is the only route to one, short of installing a Speaker supportive of Ukraine.
Are we sure Johnson isnt getting some money from some strange sources.
What people do about his lack of action is more important than his motivation for it.
Personally am NOT a fan of Speaker-Preacher Mike. HOWEVER, think your analysis re: his motivations AND (potential) action is somewhat off-base.
Because (unless he's blowing smoke up EVERYBODY's ass) Speaker Johnson DOES appear to want to pass a bill including aid for Ukraine. At least according to NYT (if not the Guardian).
He would also like to remain Speaker in spite of efforts by Marjorie Taylor Greene & fellow mega-MAGA-nut-jobs to depose yet another GOP Speaker. And without needing House Democrats to throw a few absentions his way when & if they vote is called on keeping him in the High Chair.
Reckon we shall soon find out - likely this week - what action Mike Johnson is gonna take re: UKR.
Note that a discharge petition is NOT the only route to an up-or-down vote . . . depending on exactly what ends up getting voted on, with respect to UKR details AND nexus with other issues, most notably aid for Israel and US border policy.
Nicotine has some upsides: "Nicotine-containing products are sometimes used for the performance-enhancing effects of nicotine on cognition.[59] A 2010 meta-analysis of 41 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies concluded that nicotine or smoking had significant positive effects on aspects of fine motor abilities, alerting and orienting attention, and episodic and working memory." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine Nicotine is an unusual chemical; it kicks up the metabolism -- and helps users concentrate. Caffeine, and many other substance help with the first, and hurt the second.
Years ago, my girlfriend at the time told me that some of her college students, knowing those effects, smoked only during exam week. (Or, if you prefer fictional characters, Sherlock Holmes may have been right to smoke a pipe, when he had a difficult problem to solve.)
(For the record: I tried smoking once and got nothing out of it. I would rather that no one smoked.)
“It is quite a three pipe problem, and I beg that you won't speak to me for fifty minutes.” ― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Red-Headed League
I'm not surprised that a high percentage of Conservative voters back a tobacco ban. It's what I would expect. They would disapprove, many just through snobbery.
I'd expect support to be lower from the left and even less from liberals. Libertarians would oppose a ban, of course.
I wonder whether the cohort supporting a ban would be roughly the same cohort that supported the more authoritarian lockdown measures? I'm guessing yes.
Later today Tommy Tuberville will introduce the VA Abortion Transparency Act of 2024. His bill would require the department of Veterans Affairs to report to congress anytime it performed an abortion. https://twitter.com/DougWahl1/status/1780213551946518581
Apologies if this is a dumb question but what does Veterans Affairs have to do with performing abortions?
More than you'd think: "The Republican senator's office noted that between September 2022 and September 2023, 88 abortions were facilitated through the VA, 28 of which were surgical, according to Military.com."
This is the same idiot who blocked hundreds of promotions that needed Congressional approval for months on the same issue.
I started smoking at 14 and only stopped when my daughter told both myself and her husband we could not hold her first born daughter (now 21)
I stopped immediately and it was the most difficult thing I have done but my COPD nurse told me 4 years ago that that action most certainly was a life saver for me
I cannot stand the smell or smoke, including from vapes, anywhere near me and as some have said, if this ban is Sunak's legacy then it is one he can be proud of
Of course we have the likes of Johnson and Truss furious about it, but with 71% of the public in favour we have another demonstration of how out of touch they are
I am pleased Starmer supports it so it will become law and in time save the NHS billions and very many lives
My daughter and her husband stopped smoking at the beginning of February and are both keeping at it. One thing that I thought was interesting was that she stopped drinking then too. Apparently drink is pretty much the most common reason for those seeking to give up smoking to fail.
(I am also beginning to wonder if I might become a granddad at some point in the not too distant future).
Both my parents and my brother died prematurely with tobacco playing a major role in their demise. It is an evil thing and I would be delighted if we got rid of it.
Cigs are unusual - a drug with no upside. They make you smell, get crinkly face, get yellow fingers, make you anxious, cost you a small fortune, ruin your health, shorten your life. They'll be gone here within 20 years, I think, and I support this law which will provide a helping boot towards the door.
I've quit at last but only by cheating - I do vapes now which leaves me still a slave to nicotine. Have to deal with it at some point. Can't go into old age using these stupid things. If I do have grandkids that's all they'll remember me as - a silly old geezer forever sucking on a fluorescent tube.
An interesting idea would be to ban tobacco but regulate ecstasy. There would doubtless be social and health benefits too, as people drink much less when taking MDMA on a night out than they otherwise would.
Nice idea.
Even better, legalise Ecstasy in Israel and the Palestinian territories and flood the market. War over and everyone hugging within days.
Wasn't there some evidence that the advent of ecstasy in the late eighties and early nineties served to reduce football hooliganism in the UK, as Millwall and West Ham decided they loved each other after all.
BREAKING: Trump's Truth Social to launch live TV streaming platform
The streaming content is expected to focus on live TV including news networks, religious channels, family-friendly content including films and documentaries; and other content that has been cancelled, is at risk of cancellation, or is being suppressed on other platforms and services.
I'm not clear on this Rayner business either. Dodging CGT on the sale of a property - I thought this is what she's being accused of. A matter between her and HMRC. So what are the police looking at?
I would think that they are looking at the possibility of criminality, obviously. While it is difficult for you to grasp, it is entirely possible that like anyone, a Labour MP could be guilty of this, but is, like anyone, innocent until proven guilty.
I would hope that the HMRC are looking closely at CGT. It is my understanding that evasion of CGT is a criminal offence.
She is definitely IMO guilty of monumental hypocrisy. Whatever she says to cover her guilty arse about not being against the right to buy, she is a senior member of a party that has opposed it in vociferous terms in the past. If she alone had benefitted from the policy that would be one thing, but the reality is that she and her husband/partner have gamed the system twice. She is a massive hypocrite, but Labour supporters are as determined as MAGAs to suggest that it must be a "witch hunt".
Ah so a point about hypocrisy. It isn't hypocrisy to benefit from something (in this case right-to-buy) that you are politically opposed to. Where it becomes hypocrisy is if you criticize others for doing the same thing. So, take private schools. If I say I think the country would be better off without them but I send my child to one - that's not hypocrisy. But if I slag off other people for using private schools when there I am doing it myself - that IS.
I think it depends. If you oppose something for ideological reasons and that is the basis for supporting abolition/ban then I think it is hypocritical to be making use of the service in the meantime.
I mean wasn't that pretty much he basis of much of the MPs expenses scandal? Much of what they were doing was not illegal but it was, by the terms of most of the country, immoral. If your ideology says private schools are 'wrong' for ideological reasons then it is hypocritical to make use of them for as long as they still exist.
If on the other hand your policy is to get rid of something because, whilst it might be useful/practical, as a country we just can't afford it, then I don't think it would be hypocritical to make use of it until it is got rid of.
Private schools (and private medicine) are an example of a topic where I think it's reasonable to distinguish between personal decision making and the public good, but the arguments against are much more powerful when they don't attempt to demonise the user in moral terms but explain the issues with a system that leads to decisions that are logical at household level but damaging in the collective. It's tragedy of the commons. There is nothing inherently bad about a private school per se. In fact as individual organisations they are usually run by dedicated people who want to provide a great education. It's the system that can be criticized.
When someone couches something in moral terms applied to the user or consumer, then I agree it then becomes hypocritical. If you slag off people for driving gas guzzling SUVs and then jet off on long haul holidays, that's an example. Or if you criticise landlords as undeserving rentiers and then it turns out you have a string of buy-to-let properties. In Ange's case I think it would have been hypocrisy if she had urged council tenants not to make use of the right to buy.
It now looks likely that an ice-free Arctic in September is inevitable and could happen pretty much any year from now, though might not happen for a few decades.
Where we can make a difference is in reducing how long the ice-free period becomes each year. If we can stop it from extending into July and June then we can reduce the extent of the positive feedback, where an ice-free Arctic absorbs the summer Arctic sunlight.
The sooner we get going with those pumps that were to spray sea water onto the existing ice and thicken it the better. Its going to get harder and harder as the ice recedes.
The eventual full melting is inevitable but the albedo effect in summer is already much reduced and vertical mixing as a result of the Atlanticisation of the Arctic ocean is already increasing, but the closer we get to zero ice, the more marginal the additional positive feedback. We may just need to accept that the Arctic ice is gone, long term.
There was a period in the early-to-mid 2010s when it looked like it had already entered a death spiral and would melt out much more quickly than models, but that was weather. We had a series of summers with negative Arctic Oscillation and high pressure in all the right places for rapid melting. The rate of change has reverted back to the longer term trend since because we've had a few years with a cloudy stormy Arctic basin.
The most depressing aspect of cryosphere melting is the much more visible loss of glaciers in our mountains. The Alps have already lost dozens of small glaciers and ice patches and most valley glaciers have shrunk to a shadow of their former selves. It's even worse in parts of the Andes, and of course Africa which may well be entirely glacier free within a decade or two.
The one part of Europe where glaciers haven't been retreating, bizarrely, is the relatively low and wonderfully named Accursed Mountains in Albania. It's so wet there, and has got wetter, that the rate of winter accumulation (something mad like 10 metres a season in the glacial corries) is keeping up with the rate of summer melting.
I find your tears on this topic rather crocodile-esque, given that sea temperatures have seen an unprecedented rise recently in response to legislation to alter maritime fuel, and you are against looking for solutions to reverse the problem, preferring to (as I recall) 'rip off the plaster'.
Responding to your disinformation on anything remotely environmental really is whack-a-mole time, you never seem to read or take on board anything people write in response and then the next time the topic arises up you pop with the same talking points. You've used the crocodile tears term before too - another rhetorical device to question the motivations of the writer. It's bloody frustrating but perhaps that's the point. It reminds me of similarly circular "discussions" with climate sceptics back in the heyday of Whattsupwithhat around 2007-2013.
You may recall, but probably don't (won't), the twin issues of maritime sulphur pollution hiding at best a few years' of underlying warming, and the hundreds of thousands of people who die prematurely as a direct result of maritime transport emissions.
Arguing we should combat a risk you don't actually believe in by emitting more pollution is simply a talking point designed to obfuscate. If you do honestly think albedo-forcing should be in the geoengineering toolkit against climate change, and it's a reasonable option to consider, there are several technologies out there that don't involve emitting toxic soot and tropospheric sulphates.
It seems I'm not the only one with limited reading and comprehension skills, as in that discussion I wasn't advocating putting sulphur back into fuel; I was suggesting spraying nothing more deadly than sea water into the sky to brighten the clouds.
As for your motivations, yes, I do question them. I believe that you and many who think in a similar way have become obsessed with the means and forgotten the ends, a warped perspective that actually welcomes unprecedented sea temperature rises and the disruption caused by them if it means more people can be brow-beaten into accepting the decarbonisation agenda. And doesn't really want an immediate solution, because if the rise in sea temperatures were to be reversed successfully, where would that leave us? It would send entirely the wrong message wouldn't it?
That's when those who claim to offer the solution have gone through the looking glass and become the problem.
Nicotine has some upsides: "Nicotine-containing products are sometimes used for the performance-enhancing effects of nicotine on cognition.[59] A 2010 meta-analysis of 41 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies concluded that nicotine or smoking had significant positive effects on aspects of fine motor abilities, alerting and orienting attention, and episodic and working memory." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine Nicotine is an unusual chemical; it kicks up the metabolism -- and helps users concentrate. Caffeine, and many other substance help with the first, and hurt the second.
Years ago, my girlfriend at the time told me that some of her college students, knowing those effects, smoked only during exam week. (Or, if you prefer fictional characters, Sherlock Holmes may have been right to smoke a pipe, when he had a difficult problem to solve.)
(For the record: I tried smoking once and got nothing out of it. I would rather that no one smoked.)
Later today Tommy Tuberville will introduce the VA Abortion Transparency Act of 2024. His bill would require the department of Veterans Affairs to report to congress anytime it performed an abortion. https://twitter.com/DougWahl1/status/1780213551946518581
Apologies if this is a dumb question but what does Veterans Affairs have to do with performing abortions?
As noted by MattW, a HUGE part of the job of US Dept of Veterans Affairs, is managing the VA's MASSIVE in-house health care system for qualifying US military veterans
Including women vets, including those who may want or need to seek an abortion, in variety of medical situations.
I notice a recent poll looks difficult for Andy Street and assuming he loses in May, what chance of him standing in GE24, winning, and being the next leader of the conservative party
The point would appear, that he is barely more popular than the Government.
On the basis of that poll? In order to draw that conclusion we'd have to know how the West Midlands urban area intended to vote at the GE. Instinctively I would have thought it above-averagely Labour - so if Andy Street is doing better than the Conservatives there then well done him. I may be wrong however. From what I've seen of Andy Street he seems the sort of non-tribal politician we need more of.
Labour are on 52% in Westminster VI for W Midlands, and Tories on 24% I think. So Street is doing better than the party and/or the Labour candidate is doing worse than his party.
Is that West Midlands region, or West Midlands urban area? (Possibly the most unhelpfully named subdivision in the country).
The "county" I think, so essentially urban area.
Should be renamed Greater Birmingham. West Midlands really is a stupid name.
I'm not surprised that a high percentage of Conservative voters back a tobacco ban. It's what I would expect. They would disapprove, many just through snobbery.
I'd expect support to be lower from the left and even less from liberals. Libertarians would oppose a ban, of course.
I wonder whether the cohort supporting a ban would be roughly the same cohort that supported the more authoritarian lockdown measures? I'm guessing yes.
Actually I fully support the smoking bill but did not support the excessive lockdowns
I'm not clear on this Rayner business either. Dodging CGT on the sale of a property - I thought this is what she's being accused of. A matter between her and HMRC. So what are the police looking at?
I would think that they are looking at the possibility of criminality, obviously. While it is difficult for you to grasp, it is entirely possible that like anyone, a Labour MP could be guilty of this, but is, like anyone, innocent until proven guilty.
I would hope that the HMRC are looking closely at CGT. It is my understanding that evasion of CGT is a criminal offence.
She is definitely IMO guilty of monumental hypocrisy. Whatever she says to cover her guilty arse about not being against the right to buy, she is a senior member of a party that has opposed it in vociferous terms in the past. If she alone had benefitted from the policy that would be one thing, but the reality is that she and her husband/partner have gamed the system twice. She is a massive hypocrite, but Labour supporters are as determined as MAGAs to suggest that it must be a "witch hunt".
Ah so a point about hypocrisy. It isn't hypocrisy to benefit from something (in this case right-to-buy) that you are politically opposed to. Where it becomes hypocrisy is if you criticize others for doing the same thing. So, take private schools. If I say I think the country would be better off without them but I send my child to one - that's not hypocrisy. But if I slag off other people for using private schools when there I am doing it myself - that IS.
I think it depends. If you oppose something for ideological reasons and that is the basis for supporting abolition/ban then I think it is hypocritical to be making use of the service in the meantime.
I mean wasn't that pretty much he basis of much of the MPs expenses scandal? Much of what they were doing was not illegal but it was, by the terms of most of the country, immoral. If your ideology says private schools are 'wrong' for ideological reasons then it is hypocritical to make use of them for as long as they still exist.
If on the other hand your policy is to get rid of something because, whilst it might be useful/practical, as a country we just can't afford it, then I don't think it would be hypocritical to make use of it until it is got rid of.
I don't see it that way. IMO you can use something you wish didn't exist without being a hypocrite. Different example: High earner thinks top rate tax should be double what it is but they avail themselves of the (in their view) societally harmful fiscal regime as it is and pay only what they owe. Hypocrite? No, I don't think so.
I'm not surprised that a high percentage of Conservative voters back a tobacco ban. It's what I would expect. They would disapprove, many just through snobbery.
I'd expect support to be lower from the left and even less from liberals. Libertarians would oppose a ban, of course.
I wonder whether the cohort supporting a ban would be roughly the same cohort that supported the more authoritarian lockdown measures? I'm guessing yes.
Actually I fully support the smoking bill but did not support the excessive lockdowns
If I recall, your opposition to lockdown was quite late in the day and wasn't it because of your age (you didn't want youngsters to suffer on your behalf)? Would you have felt the same if you were 30 or 40 years younger I wonder?
I started smoking at 14 and only stopped when my daughter told both myself and her husband we could not hold her first born daughter (now 21)
I stopped immediately and it was the most difficult thing I have done but my COPD nurse told me 4 years ago that that action most certainly was a life saver for me
I cannot stand the smell or smoke, including from vapes, anywhere near me and as some have said, if this ban is Sunak's legacy then it is one he can be proud of
Of course we have the likes of Johnson and Truss furious about it, but with 71% of the public in favour we have another demonstration of how out of touch they are
I am pleased Starmer supports it so it will become law and in time save the NHS billions and very many lives
My daughter and her husband stopped smoking at the beginning of February and are both keeping at it. One thing that I thought was interesting was that she stopped drinking then too. Apparently drink is pretty much the most common reason for those seeking to give up smoking to fail.
(I am also beginning to wonder if I might become a granddad at some point in the not too distant future).
Both my parents and my brother died prematurely with tobacco playing a major role in their demise. It is an evil thing and I would be delighted if we got rid of it.
Cigs are unusual - a drug with no upside. They make you smell, get crinkly face, get yellow fingers, make you anxious, cost you a small fortune, ruin your health, shorten your life. They'll be gone here within 20 years, I think, and I support this law which will provide a helping boot towards the door.
I've quit at last but only by cheating - I do vapes now which leaves me still a slave to nicotine. Have to deal with it at some point. Can't go into old age using these stupid things. If I do have grandkids that's all they'll remember me as - a silly old geezer forever sucking on a fluorescent tube.
if nicotine has no upside how was it that three-quarters of the male population at one point used the drug? There has to be some benefit.
No, it feels great as you puff but that 'pleasure' is just the relief of the withdrawal pangs from the addiction itself (to nicotine). Why do people get hooked in the first place? Image, I'd say is the main thing. That's why I started. The perception of looking cool, which the marketing cleverly plays into. It's insidious and powerful. Eg I still think it looks cool.
I gave up decades ago by the trick of becoming addicted for quite a time to the delights of not smoking. However I still remember just how enjoyable it was. And, at a certain age, its combination effect was compelling. One has to recall just how insecure the arrogant young usually were and are. Smoking was all of: cool, highly addictive, grown up, (in those days) much cheaper than alcohol, and gave you something to do and to share in social situations. "Filthy, injurious and vile", but also magic.
I'm not surprised that a high percentage of Conservative voters back a tobacco ban. It's what I would expect. They would disapprove, many just through snobbery.
I'd expect support to be lower from the left and even less from liberals. Libertarians would oppose a ban, of course.
I wonder whether the cohort supporting a ban would be roughly the same cohort that supported the more authoritarian lockdown measures? I'm guessing yes.
Actually I fully support the smoking bill but did not support the excessive lockdowns
If I recall, your opposition to lockdown was quite late in the day and wasn't it because of your age (you didn't want youngsters to suffer on your behalf)? Would have felt the same if you were 30 or 40 years younger I wonder?
I supported the earlier lockdowns, but once the vaccine was available then increasingly less so and certainly the country would have been locked down much longer under Starmer and indeed Drakeford causing much more economic disruption than was necessary
We share the widespread disappointment at the review's lack of evidence and perpetuation of harmful stereotypes. As always, we stand with young, trans, and autistic individuals, and women in defending their autonomy. Please see our full initial statement below. Initial Statement on the Cass Review: "We are very disappointed by the lack of evidence leading to a conclusion which infantilises autistic people and is undeniable transphobia towards young adults and people. The Gillick competency saves lives and should be protected, not just for trans people but all people. Everyone has medical rights which should be protected. LGBT+ Liberal Democrats will continue to stand with trans people, young people, autistic people and women to defend their right to bodily and medical autonomy. LGBT+ Liberal Democrats Executive Committee
It now looks likely that an ice-free Arctic in September is inevitable and could happen pretty much any year from now, though might not happen for a few decades.
Where we can make a difference is in reducing how long the ice-free period becomes each year. If we can stop it from extending into July and June then we can reduce the extent of the positive feedback, where an ice-free Arctic absorbs the summer Arctic sunlight.
The sooner we get going with those pumps that were to spray sea water onto the existing ice and thicken it the better. Its going to get harder and harder as the ice recedes.
The eventual full melting is inevitable but the albedo effect in summer is already much reduced and vertical mixing as a result of the Atlanticisation of the Arctic ocean is already increasing, but the closer we get to zero ice, the more marginal the additional positive feedback. We may just need to accept that the Arctic ice is gone, long term.
There was a period in the early-to-mid 2010s when it looked like it had already entered a death spiral and would melt out much more quickly than models, but that was weather. We had a series of summers with negative Arctic Oscillation and high pressure in all the right places for rapid melting. The rate of change has reverted back to the longer term trend since because we've had a few years with a cloudy stormy Arctic basin.
The most depressing aspect of cryosphere melting is the much more visible loss of glaciers in our mountains. The Alps have already lost dozens of small glaciers and ice patches and most valley glaciers have shrunk to a shadow of their former selves. It's even worse in parts of the Andes, and of course Africa which may well be entirely glacier free within a decade or two.
The one part of Europe where glaciers haven't been retreating, bizarrely, is the relatively low and wonderfully named Accursed Mountains in Albania. It's so wet there, and has got wetter, that the rate of winter accumulation (something mad like 10 metres a season in the glacial corries) is keeping up with the rate of summer melting.
I find your tears on this topic rather crocodile-esque, given that sea temperatures have seen an unprecedented rise recently in response to legislation to alter maritime fuel, and you are against looking for solutions to reverse the problem, preferring to (as I recall) 'rip off the plaster'.
Responding to your disinformation on anything remotely environmental really is whack-a-mole time, you never seem to read or take on board anything people write in response and then the next time the topic arises up you pop with the same talking points. You've used the crocodile tears term before too - another rhetorical device to question the motivations of the writer. It's bloody frustrating but perhaps that's the point. It reminds me of similarly circular "discussions" with climate sceptics back in the heyday of Whattsupwithhat around 2007-2013.
You may recall, but probably don't (won't), the twin issues of maritime sulphur pollution hiding at best a few years' of underlying warming, and the hundreds of thousands of people who die prematurely as a direct result of maritime transport emissions.
Arguing we should combat a risk you don't actually believe in by emitting more pollution is simply a talking point designed to obfuscate. If you do honestly think albedo-forcing should be in the geoengineering toolkit against climate change, and it's a reasonable option to consider, there are several technologies out there that don't involve emitting toxic soot and tropospheric sulphates.
It seems I'm not the only one with limited reading and comprehension skills, as in that discussion I wasn't advocating putting sulphur back into fuel; I was suggesting spraying nothing more deadly than sea water into the sky to brighten the clouds.
As for your motivations, yes, I do question them. I believe that you and many who think in a similar way have become obsessed with the means and forgotten the ends, a warped perspective that actually welcomes unprecedented sea temperature rises and the disruption caused by them if it means more people can be brow-beaten into accepting the decarbonisation agenda. And doesn't really want an immediate solution, because if the rise in sea temperatures were to be reversed successfully, where would that leave us? It would send entirely the wrong message wouldn't it?
That's when those who claim to offer the solution have gone through the looking glass and become the problem.
No, you're straw manning I'm afraid. You are a culture warrior, and the favoured tactic of culture war is to caricature the attitudes of the loony fringe of the opposite side of the argument, and apply it to the entire argument.
The first paragraph of my first post was discussing how the incremental effect of losing the rest of the Arctic ice may not be a big deal. But you'll have skipped that bit and gone to the bit where you imagine I'm attaching myself to a motorway gantry and calling for a ban on wood burning stoves.
I started smoking at 14 and only stopped when my daughter told both myself and her husband we could not hold her first born daughter (now 21)
I stopped immediately and it was the most difficult thing I have done but my COPD nurse told me 4 years ago that that action most certainly was a life saver for me
I cannot stand the smell or smoke, including from vapes, anywhere near me and as some have said, if this ban is Sunak's legacy then it is one he can be proud of
Of course we have the likes of Johnson and Truss furious about it, but with 71% of the public in favour we have another demonstration of how out of touch they are
I am pleased Starmer supports it so it will become law and in time save the NHS billions and very many lives
My daughter and her husband stopped smoking at the beginning of February and are both keeping at it. One thing that I thought was interesting was that she stopped drinking then too. Apparently drink is pretty much the most common reason for those seeking to give up smoking to fail.
(I am also beginning to wonder if I might become a granddad at some point in the not too distant future).
Both my parents and my brother died prematurely with tobacco playing a major role in their demise. It is an evil thing and I would be delighted if we got rid of it.
Cigs are unusual - a drug with no upside. They make you smell, get crinkly face, get yellow fingers, make you anxious, cost you a small fortune, ruin your health, shorten your life. They'll be gone here within 20 years, I think, and I support this law which will provide a helping boot towards the door.
I've quit at last but only by cheating - I do vapes now which leaves me still a slave to nicotine. Have to deal with it at some point. Can't go into old age using these stupid things. If I do have grandkids that's all they'll remember me as - a silly old geezer forever sucking on a fluorescent tube.
if nicotine has no upside how was it that three-quarters of the male population at one point used the drug? There has to be some benefit.
No, it feels great as you puff but that 'pleasure' is just the relief of the withdrawal pangs from the addiction itself (to nicotine). Why do people get hooked in the first place? Image, I'd say is the main thing. That's why I started. The perception of looking cool, which the marketing cleverly plays into. It's insidious and powerful. Eg I still think it looks cool.
I gave up decades ago by the trick of becoming addicted for quite a time to the delights of not smoking. However I still remember just how enjoyable it was. And, at a certain age, its combination effect was compelling. One has to recall just how insecure the arrogant young usually were and are. Smoking was all of: cool, highly addictive, grown up, (in those days) much cheaper than alcohol, and gave you something to do and to share in social situations. "Filthy, injurious and vile", but also magic.
You have to get it kicked by forty. You did - well done.
I started smoking when I was 16, and at 18 had a (I thought) very serious girl-friend who smoked heavily. However eventually we broke up and for 3 months I didn’t smoke. Then, foolishly, I started again but at 20 or so met up with someone who “didn’t smoke before 11am, so that I don’t get addicted.” Took his advice and, coupled with the fact that as a pharmacist I couldn’t smoke at work, when our children came along I just stopped. And, like Big G, I’ve never smoked since.
Having said that I’ve got doubts about the current proposals; how does a shopkeeper establish a customer’s age? And how/why do we control do we control what over 21’s do without banning the substance?
I started smoking at 14 and only stopped when my daughter told both myself and her husband we could not hold her first born daughter (now 21)
I stopped immediately and it was the most difficult thing I have done but my COPD nurse told me 4 years ago that that action most certainly was a life saver for me
I cannot stand the smell or smoke, including from vapes, anywhere near me and as some have said, if this ban is Sunak's legacy then it is one he can be proud of
Of course we have the likes of Johnson and Truss furious about it, but with 71% of the public in favour we have another demonstration of how out of touch they are
I am pleased Starmer supports it so it will become law and in time save the NHS billions and very many lives
My daughter and her husband stopped smoking at the beginning of February and are both keeping at it. One thing that I thought was interesting was that she stopped drinking then too. Apparently drink is pretty much the most common reason for those seeking to give up smoking to fail.
(I am also beginning to wonder if I might become a granddad at some point in the not too distant future).
Both my parents and my brother died prematurely with tobacco playing a major role in their demise. It is an evil thing and I would be delighted if we got rid of it.
Cigs are unusual - a drug with no upside. They make you smell, get crinkly face, get yellow fingers, make you anxious, cost you a small fortune, ruin your health, shorten your life. They'll be gone here within 20 years, I think, and I support this law which will provide a helping boot towards the door.
I've quit at last but only by cheating - I do vapes now which leaves me still a slave to nicotine. Have to deal with it at some point. Can't go into old age using these stupid things. If I do have grandkids that's all they'll remember me as - a silly old geezer forever sucking on a fluorescent tube.
if nicotine has no upside how was it that three-quarters of the male population at one point used the drug? There has to be some benefit.
No, it feels great as you puff but that 'pleasure' is just the relief of the withdrawal pangs from the addiction itself (to nicotine). Why do people get hooked in the first place? Image, I'd say is the main thing. That's why I started. The perception of looking cool, which the marketing cleverly plays into. It's insidious and powerful. Eg I still think it looks cool.
I gave up decades ago by the trick of becoming addicted for quite a time to the delights of not smoking. However I still remember just how enjoyable it was. And, at a certain age, its combination effect was compelling. One has to recall just how insecure the arrogant young usually were and are. Smoking was all of: cool, highly addictive, grown up, (in those days) much cheaper than alcohol, and gave you something to do and to share in social situations. "Filthy, injurious and vile", but also magic.
You have to get it kicked by forty. You did - well done.
I notice a recent poll looks difficult for Andy Street and assuming he loses in May, what chance of him standing in GE24, winning, and being the next leader of the conservative party
Haven't candidates already been selected? So someone else would have to stand down as candidate. And he'd need to find a winnable seat!
No - there are a large number of conservative GE seats available
“Party seeks eager volunteers to share in its collective punishment…younger applicants might be able to make it into parliament in a decade or two…..”
It now looks likely that an ice-free Arctic in September is inevitable and could happen pretty much any year from now, though might not happen for a few decades.
Where we can make a difference is in reducing how long the ice-free period becomes each year. If we can stop it from extending into July and June then we can reduce the extent of the positive feedback, where an ice-free Arctic absorbs the summer Arctic sunlight.
The sooner we get going with those pumps that were to spray sea water onto the existing ice and thicken it the better. Its going to get harder and harder as the ice recedes.
The eventual full melting is inevitable but the albedo effect in summer is already much reduced and vertical mixing as a result of the Atlanticisation of the Arctic ocean is already increasing, but the closer we get to zero ice, the more marginal the additional positive feedback. We may just need to accept that the Arctic ice is gone, long term.
There was a period in the early-to-mid 2010s when it looked like it had already entered a death spiral and would melt out much more quickly than models, but that was weather. We had a series of summers with negative Arctic Oscillation and high pressure in all the right places for rapid melting. The rate of change has reverted back to the longer term trend since because we've had a few years with a cloudy stormy Arctic basin.
The most depressing aspect of cryosphere melting is the much more visible loss of glaciers in our mountains. The Alps have already lost dozens of small glaciers and ice patches and most valley glaciers have shrunk to a shadow of their former selves. It's even worse in parts of the Andes, and of course Africa which may well be entirely glacier free within a decade or two.
The one part of Europe where glaciers haven't been retreating, bizarrely, is the relatively low and wonderfully named Accursed Mountains in Albania. It's so wet there, and has got wetter, that the rate of winter accumulation (something mad like 10 metres a season in the glacial corries) is keeping up with the rate of summer melting.
I find your tears on this topic rather crocodile-esque, given that sea temperatures have seen an unprecedented rise recently in response to legislation to alter maritime fuel, and you are against looking for solutions to reverse the problem, preferring to (as I recall) 'rip off the plaster'.
Responding to your disinformation on anything remotely environmental really is whack-a-mole time, you never seem to read or take on board anything people write in response and then the next time the topic arises up you pop with the same talking points. You've used the crocodile tears term before too - another rhetorical device to question the motivations of the writer. It's bloody frustrating but perhaps that's the point. It reminds me of similarly circular "discussions" with climate sceptics back in the heyday of Whattsupwithhat around 2007-2013.
You may recall, but probably don't (won't), the twin issues of maritime sulphur pollution hiding at best a few years' of underlying warming, and the hundreds of thousands of people who die prematurely as a direct result of maritime transport emissions.
Arguing we should combat a risk you don't actually believe in by emitting more pollution is simply a talking point designed to obfuscate. If you do honestly think albedo-forcing should be in the geoengineering toolkit against climate change, and it's a reasonable option to consider, there are several technologies out there that don't involve emitting toxic soot and tropospheric sulphates.
It seems I'm not the only one with limited reading and comprehension skills, as in that discussion I wasn't advocating putting sulphur back into fuel; I was suggesting spraying nothing more deadly than sea water into the sky to brighten the clouds.
As for your motivations, yes, I do question them. I believe that you and many who think in a similar way have become obsessed with the means and forgotten the ends, a warped perspective that actually welcomes unprecedented sea temperature rises and the disruption caused by them if it means more people can be brow-beaten into accepting the decarbonisation agenda. And doesn't really want an immediate solution, because if the rise in sea temperatures were to be reversed successfully, where would that leave us? It would send entirely the wrong message wouldn't it?
That's when those who claim to offer the solution have gone through the looking glass and become the problem.
No, you're straw manning I'm afraid. You are a culture warrior, and the favoured tactic of culture war is to caricature the attitudes of the loony fringe of the opposite side of the argument, and apply it to the entire argument.
The first paragraph of my first post was discussing how the incremental effect of losing the rest of the Arctic ice may not be a big deal. But you'll have skipped that bit and gone to the bit where you imagine I'm attaching myself to a motorway gantry and calling for a ban on wood burning stoves.
Enough. I have to go to choir practice.
OK. If I've mischaracterised your opinion on anything in my post, feel free to come back on it later.
Its almost as if the principal owner appearing in a criminal court is not a good thing for the stock.
Trump Social "stock" just a means to an end . . . which is for various international bad-actors to shovel (yet more) money in Donald Trump's direction . . . in hope of future non-stock dividends.
At least that's MY hypothesis.
Anybody think that is NOT happening, or NOT the main aim of this "free enterprise" scam?
@rcs1000 and I were discussing this last night. He made the excellent point that losses on these shares make your contributions to DJT tax deductible.
The slight flaw is that the capitalisation of the company is falling fast, down to $3.26bn now, making Trump's share $1.9bn. If it continues to fall at this rate there will be very little left for him to sell in a few months time.
Even at a tenth of the current price his holding (114.8m shares) would be worth nearly $300m
And if it fell so far, the price would be far easier to manipulate by his billionaire backers.
At the current rate it will be down to a tenth of the current price in just over a week.
Is it possible to short these shares, or buy a put option or something?
It's incredibly expensive. I must admit, I'm tempted to buy some because (a) I will get paid the borrow; and (b) I think there might be an almighty short squeeze at some point.
I started smoking when I was 16, and at 18 had a (I thought) very serious girl-friend who smoked heavily. However eventually we broke up and for 3 months I didn’t smoke. Then, foolishly, I started again but at 20 or so met up with someone who “didn’t smoke before 11am, so that I don’t get addicted.” Took his advice and, coupled with the fact that as a pharmacist I couldn’t smoke at work, when our children came along I just stopped. And, like Big G, I’ve never smoked since.
Having said that I’ve got doubts about the current proposals; how does a shopkeeper establish a customer’s age? And how/why do we control do we control what over 21’s do without banning the substance?
I think in our time smoking was more prevalent though I did not smoke more than 10 a day and never inside the house
I expect by the time this law is fully operational smoking will be looked on as something plainly unacceptable to society
Being anti-tobacco and pro-cannabis at the same time is something I can't understand.
Why not? You don't have to smoke cannabis BTW.
A good point. I know nothing of this, honest guv, but isn't cannabis usually mixed with tobacco and smoked?
Usually yes, or so I am told. But not always.
I can honestly say I've never taken an illegal drug. A couple of fags when I was young and beer of course but that is it. I'm not opposed though. For me it was mainly cowardice, I think.
Its almost as if the principal owner appearing in a criminal court is not a good thing for the stock.
Trump Social "stock" just a means to an end . . . which is for various international bad-actors to shovel (yet more) money in Donald Trump's direction . . . in hope of future non-stock dividends.
At least that's MY hypothesis.
Anybody think that is NOT happening, or NOT the main aim of this "free enterprise" scam?
@rcs1000 and I were discussing this last night. He made the excellent point that losses on these shares make your contributions to DJT tax deductible.
The slight flaw is that the capitalisation of the company is falling fast, down to $3.26bn now, making Trump's share $1.9bn. If it continues to fall at this rate there will be very little left for him to sell in a few months time.
Even at a tenth of the current price his holding (114.8m shares) would be worth nearly $300m
And if it fell so far, the price would be far easier to manipulate by his billionaire backers.
At the current rate it will be down to a tenth of the current price in just over a week.
Stock prices don't usually move in straight lines; though DJT is challenging that truism.
Its a really weird stock. On fundamentals its value is probably a maximum of 1% of its current value and most likely nothing at all. There seem to be a lot of people who are determined to buy more shares to show their loyalty etc and a lot of market based traders who see this as a one way street. Its not impossible the former will prove the latter wrong for a considerable period.
See GameStop, for example.
Be very very careful. Some of the “share trading accounts” don’t actually mean you own the shares. Equally some of the platforms for amateurs to play with shorting etc are… not exactly in your favour.
The former thing became an issue with the GameStop comedy - when people tried to stop shares they thought they owned from being used to short. And were unable to stop this.
I noticed at the weekend that Rayner's noisy ex-assistant's payoff when he became an ex included an NDA (didn't appear to apply to commenting on her housing arrangements). Is this standard with this type of thing nowadays?
It’s usually a confidentiality clause rather than an NDA but if you have a settlement agreement then yes
I notice a recent poll looks difficult for Andy Street and assuming he loses in May, what chance of him standing in GE24, winning, and being the next leader of the conservative party
On one hand, I agree about the attraction. Substantial real world experience, getting on with stuff, ignoring culture war rubbish, can-do, optimistic.
And yes, there will be winnable Conservative seats coming vacant in the next few months, and I'd be happy if he were catapulted into mine.
But beyond that, the timings don't really work. It's hard to imagine the party picking a Westminster newbie as their leader, no matter how capable. And he'd be 65 by the time of the 2029 election, which is probably pushing "if you're good enough you're young enough" thing too far.
Shame, because I don't see a path back for the Conservatives that doesn't go through people like Street. The party could do a lot worse, and quite possibly will.
Later today Tommy Tuberville will introduce the VA Abortion Transparency Act of 2024. His bill would require the department of Veterans Affairs to report to congress anytime it performed an abortion. https://twitter.com/DougWahl1/status/1780213551946518581
Apologies if this is a dumb question but what does Veterans Affairs have to do with performing abortions?
One of the largest hospital networks in the US is the Department of Veterans Affairs, which provides healthcare to tens of millions of veterans. And, of course, many of those veterans will be people in their 20s and 30s.
Has anyone ever had gruel? I haven't, and I don't know anyone that has. And you don't often see it in restaurants these days, as a main or even a starter - "Gruel"
Also, why don't they just thicken it a bit? With some cornflour? Does it have to be thin? The gruel industry just needs some imagination and it could make a major comeback
If you thicken it you couldn't drink it. Gruel is a food consisting of some type of cereal—such as ground oats, wheat, rye, or rice—heated or boiled in water or milk. It is a thinner version of porridge that may be more often drunk rather than eaten. ..
Think of it as a very boring smoothie.
I’m reminded about Grape Nuts. They have been extremely popular as a breakfast cereal in the US. The one thing you can say about Grape Nuts is that they contain neither grapes nor nuts.
"created in Battle Creek, Michigan, by Charles W Post, who also thought up the rather unusual name" (that's from memory - I was big into them as a kid once I graduated from soggy rice krispies or cornflakes). Haven't had them in years, though.
I have them most days as a top-up to muesli (I only need sandals and I can qualify to be a LibDem). They're amazingly expensive for the small packets, but still quite distinctive.
I love grape nuts, and I don't quite know why. I generally eat them with raisins and a small spoonful of sugar.
The only other cereal I really like is Weetabix (also with raisins). I could never stand Shredded Wheat, and am not a massive fan of porridge.
I enjoy them immensely, but find them hard to find.
Try the vegan section...
Grape Nuts have been my go to breakfast cereal for decades. Roast in his range cooker, and ground up in his own coffee-grinder iirc.
Recently dropped from the Morrisons lineup, and a reason why I go there less.
Everything comes from Battle Creek, including Mr Kellogg iirc.
Its almost as if the principal owner appearing in a criminal court is not a good thing for the stock.
Trump Social "stock" just a means to an end . . . which is for various international bad-actors to shovel (yet more) money in Donald Trump's direction . . . in hope of future non-stock dividends.
At least that's MY hypothesis.
Anybody think that is NOT happening, or NOT the main aim of this "free enterprise" scam?
It’s no worse than any other SPAC. They are all scams.
Has anyone ever had gruel? I haven't, and I don't know anyone that has. And you don't often see it in restaurants these days, as a main or even a starter - "Gruel"
Also, why don't they just thicken it a bit? With some cornflour? Does it have to be thin? The gruel industry just needs some imagination and it could make a major comeback
If you thicken it you couldn't drink it. Gruel is a food consisting of some type of cereal—such as ground oats, wheat, rye, or rice—heated or boiled in water or milk. It is a thinner version of porridge that may be more often drunk rather than eaten. ..
Think of it as a very boring smoothie.
I’m reminded about Grape Nuts. They have been extremely popular as a breakfast cereal in the US. The one thing you can say about Grape Nuts is that they contain neither grapes nor nuts.
"created in Battle Creek, Michigan, by Charles W Post, who also thought up the rather unusual name" (that's from memory - I was big into them as a kid once I graduated from soggy rice krispies or cornflakes). Haven't had them in years, though.
I have them most days as a top-up to muesli (I only need sandals and I can qualify to be a LibDem). They're amazingly expensive for the small packets, but still quite distinctive.
I love grape nuts, and I don't quite know why. I generally eat them with raisins and a small spoonful of sugar.
The only other cereal I really like is Weetabix (also with raisins). I could never stand Shredded Wheat, and am not a massive fan of porridge.
I enjoy them immensely, but find them hard to find.
Try the vegan section...
Grape Nuts have been my go to breakfast cereal for decades. Roast in his range cooker, and ground up in his own coffee-grinder iirc.
Recently dropped from the Morrisons lineup, and a reason why I go there less.
Everything comes from Battle Creek, including Mr Kellogg iirc.
There are so many “Pro-Ukrainians” and not enough Pro-Ukrainians.
Ukraine is like an old fighter in the MMA, his true fans want him to retire and stop fighting for his health and longevity. His “true fans” want him to die on his shield for their entertainment. They’re both Pro-Ukrainian but only one actually cares about the future of the country.
I started smoking when I was 16, and at 18 had a (I thought) very serious girl-friend who smoked heavily. However eventually we broke up and for 3 months I didn’t smoke. Then, foolishly, I started again but at 20 or so met up with someone who “didn’t smoke before 11am, so that I don’t get addicted.” Took his advice and, coupled with the fact that as a pharmacist I couldn’t smoke at work, when our children came along I just stopped. And, like Big G, I’ve never smoked since.
Having said that I’ve got doubts about the current proposals; how does a shopkeeper establish a customer’s age? And how/why do we control do we control what over 21’s do without banning the substance?
I think in our time smoking was more prevalent though I did not smoke more than 10 a day and never inside the house
I expect by the time this law is fully operational smoking will be looked on as something plainly unacceptable to society
It's one of the many potential benefits of renting a house, like somebody else being responsible for mainetence, paying for new kitchens, bathrooms and carpets etc.
I have had several Ts who have moved from smoking, to smoking outside, to vaping, to giving up because of a nice, high quality dwelling, with "no smoking" in the Agreement.
Stopping smoking can also effectively generate quite a boost to personal income !
There are so many “Pro-Ukrainians” and not enough Pro-Ukrainians.
Ukraine is like an old fighter in the MMA, his true fans want him to retire and stop fighting for his health and longevity. His “true fans” want him to die on his shield for their entertainment. They’re both Pro-Ukrainian but only one actually cares about the future of the country.
Has anyone ever had gruel? I haven't, and I don't know anyone that has. And you don't often see it in restaurants these days, as a main or even a starter - "Gruel"
Also, why don't they just thicken it a bit? With some cornflour? Does it have to be thin? The gruel industry just needs some imagination and it could make a major comeback
If you thicken it you couldn't drink it. Gruel is a food consisting of some type of cereal—such as ground oats, wheat, rye, or rice—heated or boiled in water or milk. It is a thinner version of porridge that may be more often drunk rather than eaten. ..
Think of it as a very boring smoothie.
I’m reminded about Grape Nuts. They have been extremely popular as a breakfast cereal in the US. The one thing you can say about Grape Nuts is that they contain neither grapes nor nuts.
"created in Battle Creek, Michigan, by Charles W Post, who also thought up the rather unusual name" (that's from memory - I was big into them as a kid once I graduated from soggy rice krispies or cornflakes). Haven't had them in years, though.
I have them most days as a top-up to muesli (I only need sandals and I can qualify to be a LibDem). They're amazingly expensive for the small packets, but still quite distinctive.
I love grape nuts, and I don't quite know why. I generally eat them with raisins and a small spoonful of sugar.
The only other cereal I really like is Weetabix (also with raisins). I could never stand Shredded Wheat, and am not a massive fan of porridge.
I enjoy them immensely, but find them hard to find.
Try the vegan section...
Grape Nuts have been my go to breakfast cereal for decades. Roast in his range cooker, and ground up in his own coffee-grinder iirc.
Recently dropped from the Morrisons lineup, and a reason why I go there less.
Everything comes from Battle Creek, including Mr Kellogg iirc.
I am now graduating to a decent granola.
I got a box from my local Mozzies last week.
That's interesting. My local Morrisons is BIG - I make it more than 600 parking spaces, and having asked several times over months they are answering like Manuel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiThRIHwQDE
Interesting that R&W have Andy Street trailing by 14% for WM Mayor while the Cons at the GE are 28% down in the WM. That is a comparison with London where the Mayor is also notably under-performing his party's GE position.
I had assumed it was down to the unpopularity of Sadiq Khan but perhaps I was looking at it the wrong way. In fact what we are looking at is the depth of Con unpopularity at national level compared to local level. A little bit of hope for the Cons in the Locals perhaps but given the low level of Con performance in 2022 and 2023 Locals it could easily be overstated.
I love analysis like this. It’s not to say it’s necessarily correct but it’s brilliant to have this kind of thought-prompt on a political betting site and you could well be right here.
I’ve made much of my betting money panning for insightful comments like this.
With the exception of Wales, everyone seems to want to vote against whoever is in power, locally or nationally, at the moment.
The Conservatives in opposition in Wales is led by a weapons grade moron in the rotund form of Andrew R T Davies who makes an incompetent administration appear competent.
As I have said many times before we agree on ARTD
Indeed if the conservatives had a leader of even modest talent the next Senedd election would be very interesting
The political gene pool in Wales is very shallow whatever the colour of the water.
Its almost as if the principal owner appearing in a criminal court is not a good thing for the stock.
Trump Social "stock" just a means to an end . . . which is for various international bad-actors to shovel (yet more) money in Donald Trump's direction . . . in hope of future non-stock dividends.
At least that's MY hypothesis.
Anybody think that is NOT happening, or NOT the main aim of this "free enterprise" scam?
It’s no worse than any other SPAC. They are all scams.
Indeed.
The way "spoils" are divided makes SPACs an absolute honeypot for grifters.
The end of the traditional IPO has done no one any good.
Our Ange is Labour's not-so-secret weapon to win back the Red Wall. I can't imagine why there's a number of right-wing chaps on here (and elsewhere) who find a bolshie, working-class woman who speaks her mind, doesn't take any prisoners, didn't have a private education (or much of an education at all until later in life) a bit threatening to their sense of manhood. Baffling.
Imagine the consternation in Conservative/ Daily Mail circles when they learn she had a child out of wedlock.
Later today Tommy Tuberville will introduce the VA Abortion Transparency Act of 2024. His bill would require the department of Veterans Affairs to report to congress anytime it performed an abortion. https://twitter.com/DougWahl1/status/1780213551946518581
Apologies if this is a dumb question but what does Veterans Affairs have to do with performing abortions?
They provide healthcare services for all ex military in the US (another of their state funded healthcare systems). Lots of clients in their 20s and 30s. Some of whom like to have sex occasionally I presume
Our Ange is Labour's not-so-secret weapon to win back the Red Wall. I can't imagine why there's a number of right-wing chaps on here (and elsewhere) who find a bolshie, working-class woman who speaks her mind, doesn't take any prisoners, didn't have a private education (or much of an education at all until later in life) a bit threatening to their sense of manhood. Baffling.
Imagine the consternation in Conservative/ Daily Mail circles when they learn she had a child out of wedlock.
Our Ange is Labour's not-so-secret weapon to win back the Red Wall. I can't imagine why there's a number of right-wing chaps on here (and elsewhere) who find a bolshie, working-class woman who speaks her mind, doesn't take any prisoners, didn't have a private education (or much of an education at all until later in life) a bit threatening to their sense of manhood. Baffling.
Imagine the consternation in Conservative/ Daily Mail circles when they learn she had a child out of wedlock.
Our youngest son and partner had 2 outside wedlock, but then had their third after their marriage !!!
I started smoking when I was 16, and at 18 had a (I thought) very serious girl-friend who smoked heavily. However eventually we broke up and for 3 months I didn’t smoke. Then, foolishly, I started again but at 20 or so met up with someone who “didn’t smoke before 11am, so that I don’t get addicted.” Took his advice and, coupled with the fact that as a pharmacist I couldn’t smoke at work, when our children came along I just stopped. And, like Big G, I’ve never smoked since.
Having said that I’ve got doubts about the current proposals; how does a shopkeeper establish a customer’s age? And how/why do we control do we control what over 21’s do without banning the substance?
I think in our time smoking was more prevalent though I did not smoke more than 10 a day and never inside the house
I expect by the time this law is fully operational smoking will be looked on as something plainly unacceptable to society
‘Purple hearts’ aka amphetamines were the alternative drug of choice in my youth. Especially near exam times!
I started smoking when I was 16, and at 18 had a (I thought) very serious girl-friend who smoked heavily. However eventually we broke up and for 3 months I didn’t smoke. Then, foolishly, I started again but at 20 or so met up with someone who “didn’t smoke before 11am, so that I don’t get addicted.” Took his advice and, coupled with the fact that as a pharmacist I couldn’t smoke at work, when our children came along I just stopped. And, like Big G, I’ve never smoked since.
Having said that I’ve got doubts about the current proposals; how does a shopkeeper establish a customer’s age? And how/why do we control do we control what over 21’s do without banning the substance?
I think in our time smoking was more prevalent though I did not smoke more than 10 a day and never inside the house
I expect by the time this law is fully operational smoking will be looked on as something plainly unacceptable to society
‘Purple hearts’ aka amphetamines were the alternative drug of choice in my youth. Especially near exam times!
I can honestly say I have never taken drugs or any illegal substances
I thnk it depends on whther one equates consumpitive with healthy...
(facile comment of course. But restrictive diets do appear to have been the basis for a healthier population)
In the USA the diet was not restrictive, food was highly plentiful and the diet was full of dairy and beef. They recorded their first heart attack (afaicr) in the late 1910s or early 1920s.
There are so many “Pro-Ukrainians” and not enough Pro-Ukrainians.
Ukraine is like an old fighter in the MMA, his true fans want him to retire and stop fighting for his health and longevity. His “true fans” want him to die on his shield for their entertainment. They’re both Pro-Ukrainian but only one actually cares about the future of the country.
Has anyone ever had gruel? I haven't, and I don't know anyone that has. And you don't often see it in restaurants these days, as a main or even a starter - "Gruel"
Also, why don't they just thicken it a bit? With some cornflour? Does it have to be thin? The gruel industry just needs some imagination and it could make a major comeback
If you thicken it you couldn't drink it. Gruel is a food consisting of some type of cereal—such as ground oats, wheat, rye, or rice—heated or boiled in water or milk. It is a thinner version of porridge that may be more often drunk rather than eaten. ..
Think of it as a very boring smoothie.
I’m reminded about Grape Nuts. They have been extremely popular as a breakfast cereal in the US. The one thing you can say about Grape Nuts is that they contain neither grapes nor nuts.
"created in Battle Creek, Michigan, by Charles W Post, who also thought up the rather unusual name" (that's from memory - I was big into them as a kid once I graduated from soggy rice krispies or cornflakes). Haven't had them in years, though.
I have them most days as a top-up to muesli (I only need sandals and I can qualify to be a LibDem). They're amazingly expensive for the small packets, but still quite distinctive.
I love grape nuts, and I don't quite know why. I generally eat them with raisins and a small spoonful of sugar.
The only other cereal I really like is Weetabix (also with raisins). I could never stand Shredded Wheat, and am not a massive fan of porridge.
I enjoy them immensely, but find them hard to find.
Try the vegan section...
Grape Nuts have been my go to breakfast cereal for decades. Roast in his range cooker, and ground up in his own coffee-grinder iirc.
Recently dropped from the Morrisons lineup, and a reason why I go there less.
Everything comes from Battle Creek, including Mr Kellogg iirc.
I am now graduating to a decent granola.
I got a box from my local Mozzies last week.
That's interesting. My local Morrisons is BIG - I make it more than 600 parking spaces, and having asked several times over months they are answering like Manuel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiThRIHwQDE
Since I'm slightly having a rant, the cycle parking (as normal round here) is the exact definition of "how to force people into motor vehicles", despite decent infrastructure nearby:
I started smoking when I was 16, and at 18 had a (I thought) very serious girl-friend who smoked heavily. However eventually we broke up and for 3 months I didn’t smoke. Then, foolishly, I started again but at 20 or so met up with someone who “didn’t smoke before 11am, so that I don’t get addicted.” Took his advice and, coupled with the fact that as a pharmacist I couldn’t smoke at work, when our children came along I just stopped. And, like Big G, I’ve never smoked since.
Having said that I’ve got doubts about the current proposals; how does a shopkeeper establish a customer’s age? And how/why do we control do we control what over 21’s do without banning the substance?
I think in our time smoking was more prevalent though I did not smoke more than 10 a day and never inside the house
I expect by the time this law is fully operational smoking will be looked on as something plainly unacceptable to society
‘Purple hearts’ aka amphetamines were the alternative drug of choice in my youth. Especially near exam times!
I can honestly say I have never taken drugs or any illegal substances
I didn’t take them myself, but I knew people who did. Very tempting, I must confess.
I started smoking when I was 16, and at 18 had a (I thought) very serious girl-friend who smoked heavily. However eventually we broke up and for 3 months I didn’t smoke. Then, foolishly, I started again but at 20 or so met up with someone who “didn’t smoke before 11am, so that I don’t get addicted.” Took his advice and, coupled with the fact that as a pharmacist I couldn’t smoke at work, when our children came along I just stopped. And, like Big G, I’ve never smoked since.
Having said that I’ve got doubts about the current proposals; how does a shopkeeper establish a customer’s age? And how/why do we control do we control what over 21’s do without banning the substance?
I think in our time smoking was more prevalent though I did not smoke more than 10 a day and never inside the house
I expect by the time this law is fully operational smoking will be looked on as something plainly unacceptable to society
‘Purple hearts’ aka amphetamines were the alternative drug of choice in my youth. Especially near exam times!
I can honestly say I have never taken drugs or any illegal substances
I didn’t take them myself, but I knew people who did. Very tempting, I must confess.
Its almost as if the principal owner appearing in a criminal court is not a good thing for the stock.
Trump Social "stock" just a means to an end . . . which is for various international bad-actors to shovel (yet more) money in Donald Trump's direction . . . in hope of future non-stock dividends.
At least that's MY hypothesis.
Anybody think that is NOT happening, or NOT the main aim of this "free enterprise" scam?
It’s no worse than any other SPAC. They are all scams.
Has anyone ever had gruel? I haven't, and I don't know anyone that has. And you don't often see it in restaurants these days, as a main or even a starter - "Gruel"
Also, why don't they just thicken it a bit? With some cornflour? Does it have to be thin? The gruel industry just needs some imagination and it could make a major comeback
If you thicken it you couldn't drink it. Gruel is a food consisting of some type of cereal—such as ground oats, wheat, rye, or rice—heated or boiled in water or milk. It is a thinner version of porridge that may be more often drunk rather than eaten. ..
Think of it as a very boring smoothie.
I’m reminded about Grape Nuts. They have been extremely popular as a breakfast cereal in the US. The one thing you can say about Grape Nuts is that they contain neither grapes nor nuts.
"created in Battle Creek, Michigan, by Charles W Post, who also thought up the rather unusual name" (that's from memory - I was big into them as a kid once I graduated from soggy rice krispies or cornflakes). Haven't had them in years, though.
I have them most days as a top-up to muesli (I only need sandals and I can qualify to be a LibDem). They're amazingly expensive for the small packets, but still quite distinctive.
I love grape nuts, and I don't quite know why. I generally eat them with raisins and a small spoonful of sugar.
The only other cereal I really like is Weetabix (also with raisins). I could never stand Shredded Wheat, and am not a massive fan of porridge.
I enjoy them immensely, but find them hard to find.
Try the vegan section...
Grape Nuts have been my go to breakfast cereal for decades. Roast in his range cooker, and ground up in his own coffee-grinder iirc.
Recently dropped from the Morrisons lineup, and a reason why I go there less.
Everything comes from Battle Creek, including Mr Kellogg iirc.
I am now graduating to a decent granola.
I got a box from my local Mozzies last week.
That's interesting. My local Morrisons is BIG - I make it more than 600 parking spaces, and having asked several times over months they are answering like Manuel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiThRIHwQDE
Yeah, they often don't have them - or put them in random places on the shelves. But this week they did, so I got a couple of boxes. Yum yum!
I started smoking at 14 and only stopped when my daughter told both myself and her husband we could not hold her first born daughter (now 21)
I stopped immediately and it was the most difficult thing I have done but my COPD nurse told me 4 years ago that that action most certainly was a life saver for me
I cannot stand the smell or smoke, including from vapes, anywhere near me and as some have said, if this ban is Sunak's legacy then it is one he can be proud of
Of course we have the likes of Johnson and Truss furious about it, but with 71% of the public in favour we have another demonstration of how out of touch they are
I am pleased Starmer supports it so it will become law and in time save the NHS billions and very many lives
My daughter and her husband stopped smoking at the beginning of February and are both keeping at it. One thing that I thought was interesting was that she stopped drinking then too. Apparently drink is pretty much the most common reason for those seeking to give up smoking to fail.
(I am also beginning to wonder if I might become a granddad at some point in the not too distant future).
Both my parents and my brother died prematurely with tobacco playing a major role in their demise. It is an evil thing and I would be delighted if we got rid of it.
Cigs are unusual - a drug with no upside. They make you smell, get crinkly face, get yellow fingers, make you anxious, cost you a small fortune, ruin your health, shorten your life. They'll be gone here within 20 years, I think, and I support this law which will provide a helping boot towards the door.
I've quit at last but only by cheating - I do vapes now which leaves me still a slave to nicotine. Have to deal with it at some point. Can't go into old age using these stupid things. If I do have grandkids that's all they'll remember me as - a silly old geezer forever sucking on a fluorescent tube.
if nicotine has no upside how was it that three-quarters of the male population at one point used the drug? There has to be some benefit.
No, it feels great as you puff but that 'pleasure' is just the relief of the withdrawal pangs from the addiction itself (to nicotine). Why do people get hooked in the first place? Image, I'd say is the main thing. That's why I started. The perception of looking cool, which the marketing cleverly plays into. It's insidious and powerful. Eg I still think it looks cool.
I gave up decades ago by the trick of becoming addicted for quite a time to the delights of not smoking. However I still remember just how enjoyable it was. And, at a certain age, its combination effect was compelling. One has to recall just how insecure the arrogant young usually were and are. Smoking was all of: cool, highly addictive, grown up, (in those days) much cheaper than alcohol, and gave you something to do and to share in social situations. "Filthy, injurious and vile", but also magic.
You have to get it kicked by forty. You did - well done.
I was 59
Yes but look what it took. A major intervention by your daughter.
Has anyone ever had gruel? I haven't, and I don't know anyone that has. And you don't often see it in restaurants these days, as a main or even a starter - "Gruel"
Also, why don't they just thicken it a bit? With some cornflour? Does it have to be thin? The gruel industry just needs some imagination and it could make a major comeback
If you thicken it you couldn't drink it. Gruel is a food consisting of some type of cereal—such as ground oats, wheat, rye, or rice—heated or boiled in water or milk. It is a thinner version of porridge that may be more often drunk rather than eaten. ..
Think of it as a very boring smoothie.
I’m reminded about Grape Nuts. They have been extremely popular as a breakfast cereal in the US. The one thing you can say about Grape Nuts is that they contain neither grapes nor nuts.
"created in Battle Creek, Michigan, by Charles W Post, who also thought up the rather unusual name" (that's from memory - I was big into them as a kid once I graduated from soggy rice krispies or cornflakes). Haven't had them in years, though.
I have them most days as a top-up to muesli (I only need sandals and I can qualify to be a LibDem). They're amazingly expensive for the small packets, but still quite distinctive.
I love grape nuts, and I don't quite know why. I generally eat them with raisins and a small spoonful of sugar.
The only other cereal I really like is Weetabix (also with raisins). I could never stand Shredded Wheat, and am not a massive fan of porridge.
I enjoy them immensely, but find them hard to find.
Try the vegan section...
Grape Nuts have been my go to breakfast cereal for decades. Roast in his range cooker, and ground up in his own coffee-grinder iirc.
Recently dropped from the Morrisons lineup, and a reason why I go there less.
Everything comes from Battle Creek, including Mr Kellogg iirc.
I am now graduating to a decent granola.
I got a box from my local Mozzies last week.
That's interesting. My local Morrisons is BIG - I make it more than 600 parking spaces, and having asked several times over months they are answering like Manuel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiThRIHwQDE
Yeah, they often don't have them - or put them in random places on the shelves. But this week they did, so I got a couple of boxes. Yum yum!
I started smoking at 14 and only stopped when my daughter told both myself and her husband we could not hold her first born daughter (now 21)
I stopped immediately and it was the most difficult thing I have done but my COPD nurse told me 4 years ago that that action most certainly was a life saver for me
I cannot stand the smell or smoke, including from vapes, anywhere near me and as some have said, if this ban is Sunak's legacy then it is one he can be proud of
Of course we have the likes of Johnson and Truss furious about it, but with 71% of the public in favour we have another demonstration of how out of touch they are
I am pleased Starmer supports it so it will become law and in time save the NHS billions and very many lives
My daughter and her husband stopped smoking at the beginning of February and are both keeping at it. One thing that I thought was interesting was that she stopped drinking then too. Apparently drink is pretty much the most common reason for those seeking to give up smoking to fail.
(I am also beginning to wonder if I might become a granddad at some point in the not too distant future).
Both my parents and my brother died prematurely with tobacco playing a major role in their demise. It is an evil thing and I would be delighted if we got rid of it.
Cigs are unusual - a drug with no upside. They make you smell, get crinkly face, get yellow fingers, make you anxious, cost you a small fortune, ruin your health, shorten your life. They'll be gone here within 20 years, I think, and I support this law which will provide a helping boot towards the door.
I've quit at last but only by cheating - I do vapes now which leaves me still a slave to nicotine. Have to deal with it at some point. Can't go into old age using these stupid things. If I do have grandkids that's all they'll remember me as - a silly old geezer forever sucking on a fluorescent tube.
if nicotine has no upside how was it that three-quarters of the male population at one point used the drug? There has to be some benefit.
No, it feels great as you puff but that 'pleasure' is just the relief of the withdrawal pangs from the addiction itself (to nicotine). Why do people get hooked in the first place? Image, I'd say is the main thing. That's why I started. The perception of looking cool, which the marketing cleverly plays into. It's insidious and powerful. Eg I still think it looks cool.
I gave up decades ago by the trick of becoming addicted for quite a time to the delights of not smoking. However I still remember just how enjoyable it was. And, at a certain age, its combination effect was compelling. One has to recall just how insecure the arrogant young usually were and are. Smoking was all of: cool, highly addictive, grown up, (in those days) much cheaper than alcohol, and gave you something to do and to share in social situations. "Filthy, injurious and vile", but also magic.
You have to get it kicked by forty. You did - well done.
I was 59
Yes but look what it took. A major intervention by your daughter.
Nevertheless, well done you too.
I had attempted it many times and reduced the amount, but yes my daughter was fantastic and by the way meant it
I thnk it depends on whther one equates consumpitive with healthy...
(facile comment of course. But restrictive diets do appear to have been the basis for a healthier population)
In the USA the diet was not restrictive, food was highly plentiful and the diet was full of dairy and beef. They recorded their first heart attack (afaicr) in the late 1910s or early 1920s.
I suspect that 'recorded' and 'suffered' are very different things. Just because they were not recorded before that time does not mean they were not happening.
Indeed about 5 seconds on Professor Google came up with:
"The American College of Cardiology reports that the earliest documented case of coronary atherosclerosis – a build-up of plaque in the arteries that can cause a heart attack – was in an Egyptian princess who lived between 1580 and 1550 B.C. The study found that heart disease was more common in ancient times than previously thought".
He’s in a fury with me but I’m not the first on here to be on the receiving end.
I think we could all do with a decent sense of humour in the run up to the GE. Following your example would see the place remain civil even when opinions differ.
Casino had a sense of humour bypass a year or two back, I seem to recall.
Has anyone ever had gruel? I haven't, and I don't know anyone that has. And you don't often see it in restaurants these days, as a main or even a starter - "Gruel"
Also, why don't they just thicken it a bit? With some cornflour? Does it have to be thin? The gruel industry just needs some imagination and it could make a major comeback
If you thicken it you couldn't drink it. Gruel is a food consisting of some type of cereal—such as ground oats, wheat, rye, or rice—heated or boiled in water or milk. It is a thinner version of porridge that may be more often drunk rather than eaten. ..
Think of it as a very boring smoothie.
I’m reminded about Grape Nuts. They have been extremely popular as a breakfast cereal in the US. The one thing you can say about Grape Nuts is that they contain neither grapes nor nuts.
"created in Battle Creek, Michigan, by Charles W Post, who also thought up the rather unusual name" (that's from memory - I was big into them as a kid once I graduated from soggy rice krispies or cornflakes). Haven't had them in years, though.
I have them most days as a top-up to muesli (I only need sandals and I can qualify to be a LibDem). They're amazingly expensive for the small packets, but still quite distinctive.
I love grape nuts, and I don't quite know why. I generally eat them with raisins and a small spoonful of sugar.
The only other cereal I really like is Weetabix (also with raisins). I could never stand Shredded Wheat, and am not a massive fan of porridge.
I enjoy them immensely, but find them hard to find.
Try the vegan section...
Grape Nuts have been my go to breakfast cereal for decades. Roast in his range cooker, and ground up in his own coffee-grinder iirc.
Recently dropped from the Morrisons lineup, and a reason why I go there less.
Everything comes from Battle Creek, including Mr Kellogg iirc.
I am now graduating to a decent granola.
I got a box from my local Mozzies last week.
That's interesting. My local Morrisons is BIG - I make it more than 600 parking spaces, and having asked several times over months they are answering like Manuel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiThRIHwQDE
Since I'm slightly having a rant, the cycle parking (as normal round here) is the exact definition of "how to force people into motor vehicles", despite decent infrastructure nearby:
That is shocking.
The easiest and best way to encourage cycling is not dedicated cycle lanes: it's simply having places to park bikes which are secure.
Bedford has bugger all cycle lanes as far as I'm aware. But since they put proper secure bike parking at the station, the number of people cycling there has increased from "negligible" to "there are more bikes parked there than cars".
Comments
You may recall, but probably don't (won't), the twin issues of maritime sulphur pollution hiding at best a few years' of underlying warming, and the hundreds of thousands of people who die prematurely as a direct result of maritime transport emissions.
Arguing we should combat a risk you don't actually believe in by emitting more pollution is simply a talking point designed to obfuscate. If you do honestly think albedo-forcing should be in the geoengineering toolkit against climate change, and it's a reasonable option to consider, there are several technologies out there that don't involve emitting toxic soot and tropospheric sulphates.
https://x.com/Wejolyn/status/1779942841629966819
Talking, they are seeing population level improvements in diabetic health, and children have been widely using insulin pumps for some time now.
Also interesting points about success of "suggest you stop the weekday drinking, sort out your diet, and start walking a dog" early interventions with people getting Type II diabetes.
* That means one that adjusts insulin flow based on a combination live measurement of blood glucose level and information the diabetic inputs based on carb content of the current food being consumed. It makes effective management of Type I diabetes more straightforward for the individual.
Introductory video as to what these are:
https://abcd.care/dtn/resource/current/introduction-hybrid-closed-loop
Reeves, Philipson, Haigh, Mahmood, Kendall, Debonnaire, Thornberry, Nandy, Powell and others rarely wear grey suits.
I mean wasn't that pretty much he basis of much of the MPs expenses scandal? Much of what they were doing was not illegal but it was, by the terms of most of the country, immoral. If your ideology says private schools are 'wrong' for ideological reasons then it is hypocritical to make use of them for as long as they still exist.
If on the other hand your policy is to get rid of something because, whilst it might be useful/practical, as a country we just can't afford it, then I don't think it would be hypocritical to make use of it until it is got rid of.
Later today Tommy Tuberville will introduce the VA Abortion Transparency Act of 2024. His bill would require the department of Veterans Affairs to report to congress anytime it performed an abortion.
https://twitter.com/DougWahl1/status/1780213551946518581
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine
Nicotine is an unusual chemical; it kicks up the metabolism -- and helps users concentrate. Caffeine, and many other substance help with the first, and hurt the second.
Years ago, my girlfriend at the time told me that some of her college students, knowing those effects, smoked only during exam week. (Or, if you prefer fictional characters, Sherlock Holmes may have been right to smoke a pipe, when he had a difficult problem to solve.)
(For the record: I tried smoking once and got nothing out of it. I would rather that no one smoked.)
Not near Krasnohorivka, but an advance IN Krasnohorivka. This video was easy to geolocate because of the slag heap and lakes and knowing the area well: the Russian armor moves NW into southern district (south side of the railway) of the city and along Zaliznychna Street. No doubt this mechanized attack and others like it are possible right now because of Ukraine's shortage of artillery shells, due to Republicans' blocking the military aid bill in Congress.
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1780267484542640137
The Garrick serves it with stewed avocet beak and potato peelings marinaded in preserved limes on alternate Tuesdays.
(facile comment of course. But restrictive diets do appear to have been the basis for a healthier population)
I'm not sure if "NHS for Veterans" is a reasonable term, but that is an impression I get.
Because (unless he's blowing smoke up EVERYBODY's ass) Speaker Johnson DOES appear to want to pass a bill including aid for Ukraine. At least according to NYT (if not the Guardian).
He would also like to remain Speaker in spite of efforts by Marjorie Taylor Greene & fellow mega-MAGA-nut-jobs to depose yet another GOP Speaker. And without needing House Democrats to throw a few absentions his way when & if they vote is called on keeping him in the High Chair.
Reckon we shall soon find out - likely this week - what action Mike Johnson is gonna take re: UKR.
Note that a discharge petition is NOT the only route to an up-or-down vote . . . depending on exactly what ends up getting voted on, with respect to UKR details AND nexus with other issues, most notably aid for Israel and US border policy.
“It is quite a three pipe problem, and I beg that you won't speak to me for fifty minutes.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Red-Headed League
I'd expect support to be lower from the left and even less from liberals. Libertarians would oppose a ban, of course.
I wonder whether the cohort supporting a ban would be roughly the same cohort that supported the more authoritarian lockdown measures? I'm guessing yes.
This is the same idiot who blocked hundreds of promotions that needed Congressional approval for months on the same issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Health_Administration
(Its structure is broadly similar to your NHS.)
BREAKING: Trump's Truth Social to launch live TV streaming platform
The streaming content is expected to focus on live TV including news networks, religious channels, family-friendly content including films and documentaries; and other content that has been cancelled, is at risk of cancellation, or is being suppressed on other platforms and services.
https://x.com/TheInsiderPaper/status/1780234236378616067
When someone couches something in moral terms applied to the user or consumer, then I agree it then becomes hypocritical. If you slag off people for driving gas guzzling SUVs and then jet off on long haul holidays, that's an example. Or if you criticise landlords as undeserving rentiers and then it turns out you have a string of buy-to-let properties. In Ange's case I think it would have been hypocrisy if she had urged council tenants not to make use of the right to buy.
As for your motivations, yes, I do question them. I believe that you and many who think in a similar way have become obsessed with the means and forgotten the ends, a warped perspective that actually welcomes unprecedented sea temperature rises and the disruption caused by them if it means more people can be brow-beaten into accepting the decarbonisation agenda. And doesn't really want an immediate solution, because if the rise in sea temperatures were to be reversed successfully, where would that leave us? It would send entirely the wrong message wouldn't it?
That's when those who claim to offer the solution have gone through the looking glass and become the problem.
Including women vets, including those who may want or need to seek an abortion, in variety of medical situations.
Initial Statement on the Cass Review:
"We are very disappointed by the lack of evidence leading to a conclusion which infantilises autistic people and is undeniable transphobia towards young adults and people.
The Gillick competency saves lives and should be protected, not just for trans people but all people. Everyone has medical rights which should be protected.
LGBT+ Liberal Democrats will continue to stand with trans people, young people, autistic people and women to defend their right to bodily and medical autonomy.
LGBT+ Liberal Democrats Executive Committee
https://www.libdems.org.uk/news/article/initial-statement-on-the-cass-review
The first paragraph of my first post was discussing how the incremental effect of losing the rest of the Arctic ice may not be a big deal. But you'll have skipped that bit and gone to the bit where you imagine I'm attaching myself to a motorway gantry and calling for a ban on wood burning stoves.
Enough. I have to go to choir practice.
"Why the centrists changed their trans tune Truth was sacrificed for status"
https://unherd.com/2024/04/why-the-centrists-changed-their-trans-tune/
And, like Big G, I’ve never smoked since.
Having said that I’ve got doubts about the current proposals; how does a shopkeeper establish a customer’s age? And how/why do we control do we control what over 21’s do without banning the substance?
I expect by the time this law is fully operational smoking will be looked on as something plainly unacceptable to society
Slow down and use some lube.
#ImprovingTheTone
The former thing became an issue with the GameStop comedy - when people tried to stop shares they thought they owned from being used to short. And were unable to stop this.
Bad for the sugar intake, though.
And yes, there will be winnable Conservative seats coming vacant in the next few months, and I'd be happy if he were catapulted into mine.
But beyond that, the timings don't really work. It's hard to imagine the party picking a Westminster newbie as their leader, no matter how capable. And he'd be 65 by the time of the 2029 election, which is probably pushing "if you're good enough you're young enough" thing too far.
Shame, because I don't see a path back for the Conservatives that doesn't go through people like Street. The party could do a lot worse, and quite possibly will.
Recently dropped from the Morrisons lineup, and a reason why I go there less.
Everything comes from Battle Creek, including Mr Kellogg iirc.
I am now graduating to a decent granola.
https://nz.news.yahoo.com/liz-truss-makes-hilarious-book-152249551.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADAbvQLwEdDgVZKUyIlDuQt3DgfZZe04pqTKX9NDHYl309IQFM7_ft_gFPsQejDsFSCA963-0LfRiwcbx7c0KVLqYh7yPoE_r2HCm7desjKwSu6JNwZM9kk0DNJ3G3nFt2II8ehZ9RvkhGCNs0eri95p0h684pggmx-gZK2JK31y#:~:text="Here's my new book!",short time in No 10.
There are so many “Pro-Ukrainians” and not enough Pro-Ukrainians.
Ukraine is like an old fighter in the MMA, his true fans want him to retire and stop fighting for his health and longevity. His “true fans” want him to die on his shield for their entertainment. They’re both Pro-Ukrainian but only one actually cares about the future of the country.
Ps not necessarily my views.
https://x.com/squatsons/status/1780280818616664247
I have had several Ts who have moved from smoking, to smoking outside, to vaping, to giving up because of a nice, high quality dwelling, with "no smoking" in the Agreement.
Stopping smoking can also effectively generate quite a boost to personal income !
I would vote against this bill saying I praise smokers who pay a lot of taxes and die early saving us on pension and other costs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiThRIHwQDE
The way "spoils" are divided makes SPACs an absolute honeypot for grifters.
The end of the traditional IPO has done no one any good.
(They're also shown on the Mozzies website: https://groceries.morrisons.com/products/post-grape-nuts-236526011
- not that that means they're actually available!)
Nevertheless, well done you too.
Their customers imo don't want an imitation ASDA, and it will hurt them. But we know that.
If I want to out-ASDA ASDA, I go to Aldi - which imo generally has higher quality product at better prices, to boot.
SpaceX just announced that F9 first stages are good for 40 flights…
Kleenex time for Bart.
Indeed about 5 seconds on Professor Google came up with:
"The American College of Cardiology reports that the earliest documented case of coronary atherosclerosis – a build-up of plaque in the arteries that can cause a heart attack – was in an Egyptian princess who lived between 1580 and 1550 B.C. The study found that heart disease was more common in ancient times than previously thought".
The easiest and best way to encourage cycling is not dedicated cycle lanes: it's simply having places to park bikes which are secure.
Bedford has bugger all cycle lanes as far as I'm aware. But since they put proper secure bike parking at the station, the number of people cycling there has increased from "negligible" to "there are more bikes parked there than cars".