The political betting angle to whatever the hell happened in Venezuela – politicalbetting.com
The political betting angle to whatever the hell happened in Venezuela – politicalbetting.com
A newly created Polymarket account invested over $30,000 yesterday in Maduro's exit. The US then took Maduro into custody overnight, and the trader profited $400,000 in less than 24 hours. Insider trading is not only allowed on prediction markets; it's encouraged. https://t.co/EtZyW1IWTa pic.twitter.com/MzsU9kOU73
1
Comments
https://x.com/flightradar24/status/2007498092946522531?s=20
Should have gone on a Jet2 holiday.
@SkyNews
Former US national security adviser John Bolton praises "entirely justified" US operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.
But he called Trump's plan to govern Venezuela "stuff of fantasy".
The last I looked, Venezuela is quite a way from Europe and I don't quite see how European "interests" are affected one way or the other. After all, Washington has run the Monroe Doctrine for decades withour Europe being too bothered.
The strange thing is, you'd have thought Cuba was the more obvious target but they don't have any oil so call me cynical but...
And a quick check on CruiseMapper tells me that P&Os Arvia is running a day late...
https://x.com/tomhfh/status/2007496227068489950?s=61
https://x.com/FootyHumour/status/2007483919030202822
But do you know where Essex is?
Allows proper tactical voting and more importantly, even more betting opportunities.
One of the better statements from political leaders in the U.K.
https://x.com/scotgovfm/status/2007492902910329186?s=61
"I can run Venezuela in my sleep".
https://x.com/krassenstein/status/2007501586613027268
I’ll give Polanski his due. He is very good at appealing to his target voter and when challenged is combative and comes out fighting.
By acting in Venezuela and aiding the Iranian opposition, @realDonaldTrump might have prevented an imminent 🇨🇳 invasion of 🇹🇼.
Beijing needs oil that is not subject to US pressure. That means Russia, Venezuela & Iran. 🇨🇳 has been buying 60-90% of Venezuelan and 85-90% of Iranian crude. That's 30-35% of 🇨🇳's present oil importation.
Another ~35% of 🇨🇳's oil comes from Arab suppliers subject to US guidance or pressure.
With new governments in Venezuela and Iran, the US will be able to regulate up to 70% of the CCP's present-day oil needs.
CCP war planners cannot execute against Taiwan under those conditions. This takes pressure off the US in the Indo-Pacific for a while, to the net benefit of American NATO commitments in Europe.
TRUMP: Well, you know, it won't cost us anything because the money coming out of the ground is very substantial
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2007506063210262710
I wonder what is the cost/benefit* analysis on this ?
*Cost to the US/benefit to the Trump crime family
Or is he so addled now that he can’t distinguish between himself and Biden?
It’s also domestic law he seems not to give a shit about. None of this went through the US legislature.
The wild west is back.
The world is awash with the stuff while it actually moves at pace to solar and batteries.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
As far as I know that's as close as he's ever got to praising Maduro, and it isn't exactly close. It was enough to severely damage his standing with Republicans though.
Edit: added:
Andrew Neil
@afneil
The Abduction of Maduro and his wife was brilliantly executed by the US military. It should have paved the way to handing over the country to the Opposition who won the election in 2024 but Maduro nullified.
But no. Trump says he and his sidekicks will run Venezuela for the foreseeable future.
How that will happen when the US is nowhere in Venezuela at the moment is a mystery. He hasn’t even talked to legitimate and popular opposition leaders.
A brilliant military extraction is being turned into a future fraught with danger, with potential disaster written all over it.
If Trump can cream off a percentage, it matters not if it costs the US a few billion.
cheating swindling bastardlucky person was?Seems very convenient.
A Swiss bank account perhaps involved somewhere?
Annoying that my Uber Lux will be 20% more expensive in London.
Uber rewrites contracts with drivers to avoid paying UK’s new ‘taxi tax’
Hailing app will now act as agent rather than supplier outside London, avoiding VAT requirement
Uber has swerved paying millions of pounds to the UK exchequer under Rachel Reeves’s new “taxi tax” after the ride-hailing app rewrote contracts with its drivers.
The move came as rules announced in November’s budget took effect, which adjusted how VAT is payable on minicab fares and would have resulted in the whole Uber fare becoming subject to the 20% sales tax.
In November, Reeves told the Commons the changes would end up “protecting around £700m of tax revenue each year”.
However, updated terms issued to Uber drivers from January 2026 mean the technology firm will act as an agent, rather than as the supplier, of transport services outside London. The move means drivers make a contract directly with their passengers – so they must charge any VAT due on the fare, while Uber only adds VAT to its commission.
As most drivers are not thought to be making more than £90,000 in bookings a year, and therefore do not have to charge VAT, the majority of Uber fares outside London will avoid becoming more expensive, since the 20% sales tax will not apply.
The new contracts do not relate to London, where the agency model is not allowed under Transport for London rules. As a result, Uber passengers in the capital will pay VAT on their fares.
Uber’s change to the terms with its drivers has been expected since the budget announcement.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/02/uber-avoids-new-uk-taxi-tax-rewriting-driver-contracts
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/21/tax-barrister-uber-uk-high-court-alleged-20m-vat-black-hole
It sits in port most of the time.
You need a Middle Eastern/Gulf bank account for this sort of stuff.
Coincidentally I might be working for a Gulf bank soon.
Which is hardly surprising, of course, but doesn't suggest reducing the threshold would increase the take, but it would be quite expensive for small businesses (yes, like mine).
If anything there might be a case for raising the threshold to £1 million not chargeable in the first five years of trading to encourage SME and entrepreneurship.
I wonder if the help on the ground came from ‘sources close to her’
Note that they can’t do this in London, because TfL, as a regulator, blocks the more egregious stuff.
Trump says a lot of stuff that sounds good to him in the moment and it's anyone's guess as to what is consequential or not. I would therefore suggest that it would be a big waste of time for most European leaders to engage with this. Most of the time it would be a wild goose chase after Trump's latest flight of fancy.
Concentrate on the task at hand. Win the war against Russia (and sort out the economy and other issues).
Premise 1: the purpose of the exercise is to achieve democracy or other worthy goal
Premise 2: the exercise will work on its own terms, eg democracy achieved with minimal loss of life.
Going back to 2004 I was somewhat bought into premise (1). Unusually I thought, and still think, Dubya was motivated to do the right thing by the Iraqis (amongst other motivations of course). Same for Blair.
Premise (2) was the problematic one. I gave a small amount of thought, but more than the Administration apparently, into how likely scenarios could roll out. One scenario might work where the Americans go in, get rid of Saddam, anoint another strongman, and get the hell out. Dubya showed no interest in that more cautious scenario and all the remaining scenarios looked disastrous from the American and allied perspective. Predicting a cluster fuck was indeed the easiest position to hold - I wasn't claiming Mystic Meg levels of prediction.
So now to 2026, I am a lot more dubious about premise (1) concerning Trump. Dubya, bless his socks, put a huge amount of effort into getting domestic and international backing for his intervention. Trump hasn't bothered with any of that. The slightest thing that goes wrong will be entirely on him. No-one agreed to this.
As with Iraq I can work out a scenario that limits the risks for the invaders. Basically the Americans having taken Maduro prisoner get out of Venezuela and have nothing more to do with the country. Trump says he won't do that, but he's not honest so maybe he will. Otherwise the Americans will need to occupy the country somehow. No-one ever makes occupations pay. Who will the Americans work with? The Chavistas, the previous opposition, the military, the drug gangs? Different factions within each of these groups? And if you support one faction, you will automatically be opposed to other factions. None of these factions, including the ones you are ostensibly supporting, owe you a single cent. Recipe for a whole lot of pain that as we have just said Trump has got no buy -in for.
We're not even willing to increase defence spending just a little bit as it is.
4-5% of China's oil needs.
https://x.com/restispolitics/status/2007449419357065606?s=61
We're in a works run by Trump, Xi and Putin and we either choose to be completely subservient to one of them, or we have to pay up.
And the cost of subservience is likely to be quite high anyway.
*I mean Maduro.
https://x.com/MrHarryCole/status/2007513425724006506
We don't have the leadership.
Quote a few of them those who went on at some length about sovereignty, and damn the cost, before Brexit.
It seems to me that producing lots of stuff and replacing it often is a good path. Produce 100 this year, and better next etc.