politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump now in clear lead in the betting following another co

First.

IMO it should be

Trump 39%
Cruz 29%
Rubio 22%
Bush 6%
Christie 4%

Is that photo of Donald Trump or from some kind of fanfic porn movie?

First airing of Donald Trump's official theme song at a rally

'Donald Trump's "official theme song" will haunt your soul. You've been warned.'
https://www.facebook.com/bfnewsnetowrk/videos/1167246663315798/?pnref=story

FPT (in response to @Wanderer):-

I don't agree with your premise but never mind.

I think there is an issue with the police arresting people in a blaze of publicity and then leaving them hanging for months on end with no charge and with the press and others free to make their life a misery. I think that is wrong. The relationship between the police and the press has not been good on this and has caused real harm. Paul Gambaccini has talked quite movingly about the effect on him of just this sequence of events. That is curable - but not by anonymity.

There is very great harm caused to people - and to society at large - by secret arrests. Think about that for a moment if you don't want a "sermon" from me.

The problem is resolved - or very significantly mitigated - by controlling what the police say to the press (and enforcing this against the police, who have been pretty egregious sinners on this), by ensuring that arrests are not made prematurely and that once arrested the investigation is done as speedily as possible so that a decision on charges or not is made.

I don't agree that charges should be kept anonymous. Justice should be public. Secret charges are as dubious and harmful as secret arrests and secret trials.

It would be interesting to know how many people charged with certain types of offences e.g. child abuse / rape have committed suicide before the trial was concluded. I do appreciate that being charged with such crimes is pretty bloody horrible, especially if you consider yourself to be innocent. But being charged with any serious crime with the prospect of prison is pretty bloody horrible, especially if, say (as has happened to a number of people whose trial started this week) the time between being charged and the trial even starting is SIX years.

The answer is to make sure that the investigation and trial happen as fast as possible so that, one way or another, all concerned get a conclusion quickly. Justice denied.... and all that.

But that requires proper resources to be put into the criminal justice system. What do you think the chances of that happening any time soon are?

And at this point, I'm retiring from this because the sound of lawyers asking for more money for lawyers and investigators and policemen and judges will lead to a roasting. And as I still have work to do, I need to get on with it.

Freggles said:

FPT

Cyclefree said:

Wanderer said:

NickPalmer said:

Cyclefree said:

I tend to the view that either both parties are anonymous or neither are. I don't like anonymity when it comes to justice (save in very exceptional cases e.g children or matters of national security) so I do feel that the anonymity rules should be looked at again.

Unless there is a need to gather further evidence or warn people, I don't see the advantage of publicising names of people accused of anything. If you buy a tabloid you discover that a George Smith of 17 Acacia Gardens has been accused of X. Either you know George or you don't. If you do, you probably know about the case anyway. If you don't, it does nobody any good at all, except give the reader a certain prurient interest ("hey, I drove by there only last month!"). But not only does it damage the defendant before conviction, it encourages false accusations and discourages true ones (because the complainant will be guessed at by people in the know, and in non-rape cases will actually be identified).

After conviction, obviously it's open season.

I agree. People who are charged but not convicted inevitably suffer a lot of harm (psychological and/or material) but we should do whatever we can to limit that and, realistically, that means anonymity before conviction.

Anonymous trials. Really?? Justice neither being seen nor heard. No, really no. On what possible basis can one overturn centuries of legal practice and principle?

The idea that the overriding principle should be to cause no harm or limit hard is, frankly, a childish one. There will always be costs and one should try as far as possible limit or mitigate those costs but most of the time we have to accept that there are far more important matters than ensuring that no-one ever suffers any upset or offence or bad effect ever. Life is tough: difficult things happen. We have to learn to live with them, get past them and get on with it. An open, transparent and, as far as possible, fair to the accused and all those involved and to the public justice system is really important. And, sorry, the hurt feelings of individuals are not a sufficient reason to tamper with that.

Trials in secret / anonymous defendants and witnesses and accusers are an abomination in a free and open society.

"Life isn't fair" is not an argument - it's a platitude and can be applied to anything in lieu of an actual argument.

Don't like high taxes? Life isn't fair. Don't like secret police? Life isn't fair. Don't like gerrymandering? Life isn't fair. And so on.

I tend to agree. But it seems to be an "argument" used ever more frequently. We are becoming a very babyish society. Life isn't fair. Deal with it. What are we? Four?

He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

david_herdson said:

He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

His theme song is the most bizarre thing I have ever heard, but very difficult to get out of your head
https://www.facebook.com/bfnewsnetowrk/videos/1167246663315798/?pnref=story

AndyJS said:

david_herdson said:

He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

Agreed. All those Europeans who rubbished his chances were just reflecting their own prejudices, as usual.

Europeans are quite capable of voting in large numbers for Marine Le Pen, Silvio Berlusconi, Geert Wilders and Nigel Farage, all of whom come from the same pool as Trump

I'm going to the poorhouse aren't I?

FPT re anonymity of defendants etc

Cyclefree said:

I think there is an issue with the police arresting people in a blaze of publicity and then leaving them hanging for months on end ...

There is very great harm caused to people - and to society at large - by secret arrests.

I totally agree that secret arrests are deplorable if the state can insist on secrecy. That's police-state-like. What I'm suggesting is that the arrestee can keep it secret if they prefer (again, unless considerations such as public safety override that).

Cyclefree said:

The problem is resolved - or very significantly mitigated - by controlling what the police say to the press (and enforcing this against the police, who have been pretty egregious sinners on this)

Agreed. That would mitigate the problem if it happened.

Cyclefree said:

I don't agree that charges should be kept anonymous.

On reflection, I agree.

Cyclefree said:

It would be interesting to know how many people charged with certain types of offences e.g. child abuse / rape have committed suicide before the trial was concluded. I do appreciate that being charged with such crimes is pretty bloody horrible, especially if you consider yourself to be innocent. But being charged with any serious crime with the prospect of prison is pretty bloody horrible, especially if, say (as has happened to a number of people whose trial started this week) the time between being charged and the trial even starting is SIX years.

I think it's uniquely horrible if the charge is such that you will never be accepted in society again. I think most of us would agree that, if convicted of an offence like that, the most severe element of the punishment would not be the official sanction of imprisonment but the eternal revulsion of everyone you met. That should not be visited on the innocent.

Cyclefree said:

The answer is to make sure that the investigation and trial happen as fast as possible so that, one way or another, all concerned get a conclusion quickly. Justice denied.... and all that.

But that requires proper resources to be put into the criminal justice system. What do you think the chances of that happening any time soon are?

And at this point, I'm retiring from this because the sound of lawyers asking for more money for lawyers and investigators and policemen and judges will lead to a roasting. And as I still have work to do, I need to get on with it.

No roasting from me. We should fund the criminal justice system adequately. But I appreciate that you have work to do, which is no fun on a Friday evening.

ydoethur said:

david_herdson said:

He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

It's Ford vs Carter in 1976 - on speed.

I think Ford is one of the most underrated US Presidents.

HYUFD said:

AndyJS said:

david_herdson said:

He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

Agreed. All those Europeans who rubbished his chances were just reflecting their own prejudices, as usual.

Europeans are quite capable of voting in large numbers for Marine Le Pen, Silvio Berlusconi, Geert Wilders and Nigel Farage, all of whom come from the same pool as Trump

Europeans are quite capable of hilariously hypocritical anti-American posturing.

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

david_herdson said:

He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

It's Ford vs Carter in 1976 - on speed.

I think Ford is one of the most underrated US Presidents.

He was a reversion of a classic gag. The Americans hired a brace of monkeys in Nixon and Agnew (later replaced by Ford) so they got Peanuts.

Pulpstar said:

AndyJS said:

O/T:

On Newsnight a couple of days ago Tory MP Alan Duncan was talking about how the oil price was back where it was 30 years ago when he started out in the industry at $30 a barrel. He didn't mention the fact that when you adjust for inflation $30 today is equivalent to about $14 in 1986.

http://chartsbin.com/view/oau

Is that all ? I'd rather have $14 in 1986 than $30 now !

Try it via this site:

https://www.measuringworth.com/

It offers a wider range of options, bearing in mind the different ways of measuring depreciation/inflation/purchasing power.

Pulpstar said:

AndyJS said:

O/T:

On Newsnight a couple of days ago Tory MP Alan Duncan was talking about how the oil price was back where it was 30 years ago when he started out in the industry at $30 a barrel. He didn't mention the fact that when you adjust for inflation $30 today is equivalent to about $14 in 1986.

http://chartsbin.com/view/oau

Is that all ? I'd rather have $14 in 1986 than $30 now !

Didn't it go under $10 during the mid-1980s?

david_herdson said:

ydoethur said:

david_herdson said:

He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

It's Ford vs Carter in 1976 - on speed.

Yes, indeed. I was too young for that one but it's a very good parallel.

(Sort of - Hillary fits closest to the Ford role while Trump would be Reagan?)

Trump would be Carter - the man who poses as the complete outsider and going in to clean up Washington and sort out all the mess these corrupt insiders have made.

Only to make, with due respect to @rcs1000's opinion of him, an even more impressive mess of things than Nixon did. At least Nixon was never attacked by a rabbit or had a major rescue mission blow itself up in full view of the world's press.

I said on PB a few years ago, were Ed Miliband to become PM he'd be the British Gerald Ford.

ydoethur said:

david_herdson said:

ydoethur said:

david_herdson said:

He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

It's Ford vs Carter in 1976 - on speed.

Yes, indeed. I was too young for that one but it's a very good parallel.

(Sort of - Hillary fits closest to the Ford role while Trump would be Reagan?)

Trump would be Carter - the man who poses as the complete outsider and going in to clean up Washington and sort out all the mess these corrupt insiders have made.

Only to make, with due respect to @rcs1000's opinion of him, an even more impressive mess of things than Nixon did. At least Nixon was never attacked by a rabbit or had a major rescue mission blow itself up in full view of the world's press.

I have a high opinion of Ford, not Carter

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

His theme song is the most bizarre thing I have ever heard, but very difficult to get out of your head
https://www.facebook.com/bfnewsnetowrk/videos/1167246663315798/?pnref=story

Same here,so it's doing it's job ;-)

On the facebook site where the song is on,the comment section is a good read ;-),this comment made me laugh.

Mellissa Tipper -

I listened to the whole thing and now it's stuck in my head. Bitterly ironic because now I'm wishing the UK had the same relaxed approach to gun laws as the US so that I could shoot myself.

;-)

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

david_herdson said:

ydoethur said:

david_herdson said:

He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

It's Ford vs Carter in 1976 - on speed.

Yes, indeed. I was too young for that one but it's a very good parallel.

(Sort of - Hillary fits closest to the Ford role while Trump would be Reagan?)

Trump would be Carter - the man who poses as the complete outsider and going in to clean up Washington and sort out all the mess these corrupt insiders have made.

Only to make, with due respect to @rcs1000's opinion of him, an even more impressive mess of things than Nixon did. At least Nixon was never attacked by a rabbit or had a major rescue mission blow itself up in full view of the world's press.

I have a high opinion of Ford, not Carter

Sorry - misread it. Too late at night after an extremely difficult week. It did seem an odd thing to say. Whatever Carter's virtues since leaving office, he was a bloody awful president. And so would Trump be, of course, although he might be better than Her Hilaryness.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Most underrated US President, LBJ.

He's my second favourite US President.

He's not poorly rated though?

Is the "most underrated" title most likely to go to someone who is considered good (but we don't appreciate just how good) or someone who is considered to be shite (but was actually mediocre)?

Wanderer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Most underrated US President, LBJ.

He's my second favourite US President.

He's not poorly rated though?

Is the "most underrated" title most likely to go to someone who is considered good (but we don't appreciate just how good) or someone who is considered to be shite (but was actually mediocre)?

Sorry, he inherited the presidency at a difficult time, and performed well in the role; certainly better than the previous two incumbents or the subsequent one

TheScreamingEagles said:

Most underrated US President, LBJ.

He's my second favourite US President.

Harry Truman is No 1 for me by a long way.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Most underrated US President, LBJ.

He's my second favourite US President.

I'd agree about LBJ.

It does beg the question as to why Grover Cleveland would be your favourite president?

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Most underrated US President, LBJ.

He's my second favourite US President.

I'd agree about LBJ.

It does beg the question as to why Grover Cleveland would be your favourite president?

Ulysses S. Grant :-)

Depending on my mood, it alternates on being Harry S Truman, Abe Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

Now my favourite Vice President, is Aaron Burr, for his duel with Alexander Hamilton.

Now I can see Trump engaging in a duel with an opponent.

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Most underrated US President, LBJ.

He's my second favourite US President.

I'd agree about LBJ.

It does beg the question as to why Grover Cleveland would be your favourite president?

Ulysses S. Grant :-)

Depending on my mood, it alternates on being Harry S Truman, Abe Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

Now my favourite Vice President, is Aaron Burr, for his duel with Alexander Hamilton.

Now I can see Trump engaging in a duel with an opponent.

Are you suggesting the Republicans might cast him in the role of Hamilton to solve their dilemma? Seems a bit extreme. After all, the duel wrecked Burr's life and career as well even if it was Hamilton that was killed.

I watched the debate of youtube, I agree Trump had a solid performance, Cruz tried to get rid of the birther issue ,not very successfully in my view, while being constantly attacked by Rubio as a flip flopper.

The others might not have even tried to be there on stage.

It's funny how Trump became a hero for New York overnight after being cast as it's villain for months, also ironic that Cruz gets a lot of money from N.Y. donors and his wife works for Goldman Sachs in "evil" N.Y. (and a 500$ thousand loan from G.S. for his senate campaign).

The moment of the debate was certainly when Trump counter-attacked on Cruz saying his remarks about N.Y. were insulting and Cruz was forced to clap Trump's attack on him.

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Most underrated US President, LBJ.

He's my second favourite US President.

I'd agree about LBJ.

It does beg the question as to why Grover Cleveland would be your favourite president?

Ulysses S. Grant :-)

Depending on my mood, it alternates being Harry S Truman, Abe Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

Now my favourite Vice President, is Aaron Burr, for his duel with Alexander Hamilton.

Now I can see Trump engaging in a duel with an opponent.

How dare you, sir! Burr was a bounder and a traitor. Hamilton was America's greatest prime minister (and also slightly unhinged but I'll skip over that).

Being serious, my favourite president is TR.

I like him too.

Actually I did write a piece saying FDR was the greatest President ever, for being a lying, duplicitous bastard.

During WW2 whilst American was supposedly neutral, he took a very pro British position that was anything but neutral.

His policy of Germany First, which he managed to sell to the US public after Pearl Harbour, was a stunning achievement and possibly changed the course of human history.

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Most underrated US President, LBJ.

He's my second favourite US President.

I'd agree about LBJ.

It does beg the question as to why Grover Cleveland would be your favourite president?

Ulysses S. Grant :-)

Depending on my mood, it alternates on being Harry S Truman, Abe Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

Now my favourite Vice President, is Aaron Burr, for his duel with Alexander Hamilton.

Now I can see Trump engaging in a duel with an opponent.

Are you suggesting the Republicans might cast him in the role of Hamilton to solve their dilemma? Seems a bit extreme. After all, the duel wrecked Burr's life and career as well even if it was Hamilton that was killed.

My suggestions for Donald Trump aren't printable.

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

david_herdson said:

He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

It's Ford vs Carter in 1976 - on speed.

I think Ford is one of the most underrated US Presidents.

He COULD walk and chew gum at the same time!

Though I think that he was the only president never to be elected. He was appointed VP after Agnew resigned. It would be very underrated to be President with that backstory; avoiding all that tiresome election business.

Wanderer said:

HYUFD said:

AndyJS said:

david_herdson said:

He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

Agreed. All those Europeans who rubbished his chances were just reflecting their own prejudices, as usual.

Europeans are quite capable of voting in large numbers for Marine Le Pen, Silvio Berlusconi, Geert Wilders and Nigel Farage, all of whom come from the same pool as Trump

Europeans are quite capable of hilariously hypocritical anti-American posturing.

Yes but Americans can just as easily stereotype Europeans as effete wimps

rcs1000 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Most underrated US President, LBJ.

He's my second favourite US President.

...

I had lunch in the same restaurant as Mitt Romney last Thursday.

I have eaten and drunk in the same pub as Charles II on several occasions.

Pulpstar said:

When does Jeb Bush's price fly off to thousandville btw ?

After N.H.
Rubio after S.C. or Nevada.

Pulpstar said:

I'm laying out Jeb Bush a touch more.

Been laying him for weeks (laid Rubio, then laid him again) . Only thing stopping me is that old adage "never bet what you can't afford to lose". Which in my case is £300, at an average 0f about 9.5.

Tykejohnno said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

His theme song is the most bizarre thing I have ever heard, but very difficult to get out of your head
https://www.facebook.com/bfnewsnetowrk/videos/1167246663315798/?pnref=story

Same here,so it's doing it's job ;-)

On the facebook site where the song is on,the comment section is a good read ;-),this comment made me laugh.

Mellissa Tipper -

I listened to the whole thing and now it's stuck in my head. Bitterly ironic because now I'm wishing the UK had the same relaxed approach to gun laws as the US so that I could shoot myself.

;-)

Now playing on the BBC News, complete with the cheerleaders

Wanderer said:

In terms of actually greatest President I can't really see beyond Lincoln.

Who was the most recent President you would call "great" though?

Truman.

Took the decision to drop the Atomic bombs on Japan. Set up the UN and NATO. Pushed the Marshall Plan through Congress. Was responsible for the Berlin Airlift. Forced through huge amounts of Civil Rights legislation against massive opposition from his own party. When he was done he packed up and went home to his mother in law's house refusing to take any position with any company or do any advertising or endorsements because he felt it would demean the office of the President.

Tykejohnno said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

His theme song is the most bizarre thing I have ever heard, but very difficult to get out of your head
https://www.facebook.com/bfnewsnetowrk/videos/1167246663315798/?pnref=story

Same here,so it's doing it's job ;-)

On the facebook site where the song is on,the comment section is a good read ;-),this comment made me laugh.

Mellissa Tipper -

I listened to the whole thing and now it's stuck in my head. Bitterly ironic because now I'm wishing the UK had the same relaxed approach to gun laws as the US so that I could shoot myself.

;-)

It's terrible.
Someone call Disney, Trump is stealing all their ideas for the next Star Wars movie.

Pulpstar said:

When does Jeb Bush's price fly off to thousandville btw ?

September, probably.

Would love to see Trump win, just to see the look on TSE's face

AlastairMeeks said:

LBJ was great, if flawed.

Reagan was a great.

The jury is out on Clinton.

I thought they acquitted him?

TheWhiteRabbit said:

david_herdson said:

Pulpstar said:

When does Jeb Bush's price fly off to thousandville btw ?

September, probably.

I just don't get it David. I'm with Pulps on this one.

Bush would have to hoover up Kasich and Christie, hack down Rubio then face off Trump and Cruz. That's a very long way back for a man who has shown little to distinguish himself so far.

I agree. One possible argument: though it's not certain that Trump will implode (he could well get the nomination from here) it's still possible that he will, and if that happens who knows where the pieces fall?

But yes, Bush's price is not really comprehensible.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Wanderer said:

In terms of actually greatest President I can't really see beyond Lincoln.

Who was the most recent President you would call "great" though?

Truman.

Took the decision to drop the Atomic bombs on Japan. Set up the UN and NATO. Pushed the Marshall Plan through Congress. Was responsible for the Berlin Airlift. Forced through huge amounts of Civil Rights legislation against massive opposition from his own party. When he was done he packed up and went home to his mother in law's house refusing to take any position with any company or do any advertising or endorsements because he felt it would demean the office of the President.

I agree about Truman.

Of the other nominations I would rate LBJ above Reagan and Clinton.

It's curious that Reagan is now spoken of as great though (to me, at least) he didn't seem so at the time. Memory winnows out all the lamentable moments to leave you with a few high points. Maybe it's like that in all these cases.

In the past century FDR, then Reagan, then IKE, then Clinton, then JFK my top 5. LBJ had great domestic success but Vietnam let him down

Wanderer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Wanderer said:

In terms of actually greatest President I can't really see beyond Lincoln.

Who was the most recent President you would call "great" though?

Truman.

Took the decision to drop the Atomic bombs on Japan. Set up the UN and NATO. Pushed the Marshall Plan through Congress. Was responsible for the Berlin Airlift. Forced through huge amounts of Civil Rights legislation against massive opposition from his own party. When he was done he packed up and went home to his mother in law's house refusing to take any position with any company or do any advertising or endorsements because he felt it would demean the office of the President.

I agree about Truman.

Of the other nominations I would rate LBJ above Reagan and Clinton.

It's curious that Reagan is now spoken of as great though (to me, at least) he didn't seem so at the time. Memory winnows out all the lamentable moments to leave you with a few high points. Maybe it's like that in all these cases.

A list of what Reagan really did, up to and including funding Osama Bin Laden:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/

Most overrated President? Certainly a contender.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Would love to see Trump win, just to see the look on TSE's face

Of course if Hillary wins it will be the first time the Democrats have won 3 or more straight presidential elections since FDR and Truman. The only Republican who has achieved the feat in the past 60 years is George Bush Snr. So if Trump is nominee historically he would have a good chance

Wanderer said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Wanderer said:

In terms of actually greatest President I can't really see beyond Lincoln.

Who was the most recent President you would call "great" though?

Truman.

Took the decision to drop the Atomic bombs on Japan. Set up the UN and NATO. Pushed the Marshall Plan through Congress. Was responsible for the Berlin Airlift. Forced through huge amounts of Civil Rights legislation against massive opposition from his own party. When he was done he packed up and went home to his mother in law's house refusing to take any position with any company or do any advertising or endorsements because he felt it would demean the office of the President.

I agree about Truman.

Of the other nominations I would rate LBJ above Reagan and Clinton.

It's curious that Reagan is now spoken of as great though (to me, at least) he didn't seem so at the time. Memory winnows out all the lamentable moments to leave you with a few high points. Maybe it's like that in all these cases.

Truman was considered very poorly when he first left office. He had the lowest poll ratings of any sitting US president up to GW Bush. It is only later that people have realised the importance of what he did. I think Reagan is like that to some extent as well.

Wanderer said:

FPT re anonymity of defendants etc

Cyclefree said:

There is very great harm caused to people - and to society at large - by secret arrests.

I totally agree that secret arrests are deplorable if the state can insist on secrecy. That's police-state-like. What I'm suggesting is that the arrestee can keep it secret if they prefer (again, unless considerations such as public safety override that).

Cyclefree said:

The problem is resolved - or very significantly mitigated - by controlling what the police say to the press (and enforcing this against the police, who have been pretty egregious sinners on this)

Agreed. That would mitigate the problem if it happened.

Cyclefree said:

I don't agree that charges should be kept anonymous.

On reflection, I agree.

Cyclefree said:

It would be interesting to know how many people charged with certain types of offences e.g. child abuse / rape have committed suicide before the trial was concluded. I do appreciate that being charged with such crimes is pretty bloody horrible, especially if you consider yourself to be innocent. But being charged with any serious crime with the prospect of prison is pretty bloody horrible, especially if, say (as has happened to a number of people whose trial started this week) the time between being charged and the trial even starting is SIX years.

I think it's uniquely horrible if the charge is such that you will never be accepted in society again. I think most of us would agree that, if convicted of an offence like that, the most severe element of the punishment would not be the official sanction of imprisonment but the eternal revulsion of everyone you met. That should not be visited on the innocent.

Cyclefree said:

The answer is to make sure that the investigation and trial happen as fast as possible so that, one way or another, all concerned get a conclusion quickly. Justice denied.... and all that.

But that requires proper resources to be put into the criminal justice system. What do you think the chances of that happening any time soon are?

And at this point, I'm retiring from this because the sound of lawyers asking for more money for lawyers and investigators and policemen and judges will lead to a roasting. And as I still have work to do, I need to get on with it.

No roasting from me. We should fund the criminal justice system adequately. But I appreciate that you have work to do, which is no fun on a Friday evening.

Thank you for your response. I have just finished work.

I hope everyone is now feeling duly sympathetic for the hard life I lead.... as I head off for whatever scraps are left at home.