Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hillary bounces back in the Democratic nomination betting a

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited October 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hillary bounces back in the Democratic nomination betting after an assured performance in first debate

Overnight in Las Vagas there’s been the first TV debate of the Democratic primary. This was all about Hillary and how well she’d perform after a period of declining poll ratings and the rise of Bernie Sanders.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,922
    edited October 2015
    I cannot see Hilary becoming president. Then again, if she does get the democratic nomination she'll be up against the usual crowd of no-hopers put up by the Republicans.

    America really needs a better political system, preferably one with less money swilling around in it.

    Oh, and first.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,254
    edited October 2015
    Wasn't this the debate Hillary simply HAD to win, not so much to improve her chances but simply to stay in the lead? It's still early days in terms of the overall race to become the next POTUS.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,567
    Another machine politician! What the world needs is a maverick loner who says what they think.....oh hang on, someone's trying that.......

    FPT - Heroic 'whataboutary' from the Russians in the Dutch MH17 report:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-v-consultation-part-a.pdf
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,075
    Surely at 1/3 she should be a lay? There is still 9 months before the nomination and that is a very long time in politics indeed. There's still plenty of water to pass under the bridge in the campaign, and still a chance that someone could come from nowhere - or from the VP's office with the incumbent President's support.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,075
    For an alternative view of the debate, with funnier captions:
    https://twitter.com/thedailyshow
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,075

    FPT - Heroic 'whataboutary' from the Russians in the Dutch MH17 report:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-v-consultation-part-a.pdf

    The Russians didn't really get that the Dutch report was about what happened technically to cause the crash, and how a similar civil airline accident might be prevented in future - rather than a political opinion of who was in charge of firing the missile that took down the plane.
    The full report is very dry and technical, with some very good photos of the job the investigators did to reconstruct the plane and determine the breakup sequence. A good read if you like these sort of things and have a couple of hours to kill - maybe on a long flight!!
    http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,567
    Sandpit said:

    FPT - Heroic 'whataboutary' from the Russians in the Dutch MH17 report:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-v-consultation-part-a.pdf

    The Russians didn't really get that the Dutch report was about what happened technically to cause the crash, and how a similar civil airline accident might be prevented in future
    The Russians should know exactly what aviation accident reports are about - its been the case for decades that they don't apportion blame - that the Russians attempt such blame "shifting" is indicative of how Putin's Russia thinks - the Ukrainians try a bit too - but nowhere near on the scale of the Russians - who also didn't cooperate fully......

    The report does make chilling reading - though mercifully (despite what some of the newspapers are reporting) it looks like the victims knew little or nothing of what overwhelmed them.....
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 3,920
    Interesting article in the Herald Scotland - SNP being lured into most blatant fiscal trap in 300 years
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,547
    edited October 2015

    Sandpit said:

    FPT - Heroic 'whataboutary' from the Russians in the Dutch MH17 report:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-v-consultation-part-a.pdf

    The Russians didn't really get that the Dutch report was about what happened technically to cause the crash, and how a similar civil airline accident might be prevented in future
    The Russians should know exactly what aviation accident reports are about - its been the case for decades that they don't apportion blame - that the Russians attempt such blame "shifting" is indicative of how Putin's Russia thinks - the Ukrainians try a bit too - but nowhere near on the scale of the Russians - who also didn't cooperate fully......

    The report does make chilling reading - though mercifully (despite what some of the newspapers are reporting) it looks like the victims knew little or nothing of what overwhelmed them.....
    I only caught a brief report on the news last night but it implied that the Russians were questioning the conclusion of the accident report rather than denying responsibility. I have no idea about this sort of thing but they claimed that it wasn't a BUK missile.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 3,920
    Having watched that This Week report and debate with the excellent Tim Marshall, I also caught an interview with Charlie Rose who was reflecting on his own interview Putin. It was interesting to note that they both kept emphasising the fact that Putin really wanted to see Russia become a key player on the world stage again, and that this was behind Putin's very recent strategic Foreign policy manoeuvres in Syria and the Ukraine.

    Sandpit said:

    FPT - Heroic 'whataboutary' from the Russians in the Dutch MH17 report:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-v-consultation-part-a.pdf

    The Russians didn't really get that the Dutch report was about what happened technically to cause the crash, and how a similar civil airline accident might be prevented in future
    The Russians should know exactly what aviation accident reports are about - its been the case for decades that they don't apportion blame - that the Russians attempt such blame "shifting" is indicative of how Putin's Russia thinks - the Ukrainians try a bit too - but nowhere near on the scale of the Russians - who also didn't cooperate fully......

    The report does make chilling reading - though mercifully (despite what some of the newspapers are reporting) it looks like the victims knew little or nothing of what overwhelmed them.....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,075
    edited October 2015

    Sandpit said:

    FPT - Heroic 'whataboutary' from the Russians in the Dutch MH17 report:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-v-consultation-part-a.pdf

    The Russians didn't really get that the Dutch report was about what happened technically to cause the crash, and how a similar civil airline accident might be prevented in future
    The Russians should know exactly what aviation accident reports are about - its been the case for decades that they don't apportion blame - that the Russians attempt such blame "shifting" is indicative of how Putin's Russia thinks - the Ukrainians try a bit too - but nowhere near on the scale of the Russians - who also didn't cooperate fully......

    The report does make chilling reading - though mercifully (despite what some of the newspapers are reporting) it looks like the victims knew little or nothing of what overwhelmed them.....
    Ha, of course they know what accident reports should be about, although in a war there will always be opinions that are contradicted by the facts on the ground. It was hardly unexpected that the Russians would say what they did given the political situation and the wider picture from their perspective.

    I do worry about a lot of what journalists write these days, did those writing the lurid and upsetting headlines even read - and understand - the full Dutch report, or were they just looking for the 'angle' of the conflict? Hard on the families to read those unnecessary headlines.

    Depressingly, when every newspaper article about which one vaguely understands the subject matter is seen to be riddled with errors, it is concerning for the other 90% of articles in the same paper from which one expects be informed. I guess there's not as many specialist hacks as there used to be, but with stories like this they really do need to take informed opinions before printing obvious bollocks!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,567
    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT - Heroic 'whataboutary' from the Russians in the Dutch MH17 report:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-v-consultation-part-a.pdf

    The Russians didn't really get that the Dutch report was about what happened technically to cause the crash, and how a similar civil airline accident might be prevented in future
    The Russians should know exactly what aviation accident reports are about - its been the case for decades that they don't apportion blame - that the Russians attempt such blame "shifting" is indicative of how Putin's Russia thinks - the Ukrainians try a bit too - but nowhere near on the scale of the Russians - who also didn't cooperate fully......

    The report does make chilling reading - though mercifully (despite what some of the newspapers are reporting) it looks like the victims knew little or nothing of what overwhelmed them.....
    I only caught a brief report on the news last night but it implied that the Russians were questioning the conclusion of the accident report rather than denying responsibility. I have no idea about this sort of thing but they claimed that it wasn't a BUK missile.
    The Russian story has changed so many times they're probably having difficulty keeping up.....they've also 'lost' the radar data that would confirm their first version that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian jet.....pity that.

    Now its endless whataboutary 'it might have been something else' - the Dutch go through that in detail.....I think they're last line is 'maybe it was a BUK, but it wasn't ours....'

    One of their complaints is that the proportions of shrapnel found in the cockpit bodies ('hundreds' in the Purser) don't exactly match that of a BUK warhead......
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,547

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT - Heroic 'whataboutary' from the Russians in the Dutch MH17 report:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-v-consultation-part-a.pdf

    The Russians didn't really get that the Dutch report was about what happened technically to cause the crash, and how a similar civil airline accident might be prevented in future
    The Russians should know exactly what aviation accident reports are about - its been the case for decades that they don't apportion blame - that the Russians attempt such blame "shifting" is indicative of how Putin's Russia thinks - the Ukrainians try a bit too - but nowhere near on the scale of the Russians - who also didn't cooperate fully......

    The report does make chilling reading - though mercifully (despite what some of the newspapers are reporting) it looks like the victims knew little or nothing of what overwhelmed them.....
    I only caught a brief report on the news last night but it implied that the Russians were questioning the conclusion of the accident report rather than denying responsibility. I have no idea about this sort of thing but they claimed that it wasn't a BUK missile.
    The Russian story has changed so many times they're probably having difficulty keeping up.....they've also 'lost' the radar data that would confirm their first version that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian jet.....pity that.

    Now its endless whataboutary 'it might have been something else' - the Dutch go through that in detail.....I think they're last line is 'maybe it was a BUK, but it wasn't ours....'

    One of their complaints is that the proportions of shrapnel found in the cockpit bodies ('hundreds' in the Purser) don't exactly match that of a BUK warhead......
    The things is, if it was the Russian Rebels, they'd have been better off admitting it and going full on attack along the line of 'why the hell was a plane flying over a war zone?'
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,567
    fitalass said:

    Interesting article in the Herald Scotland - SNP being lured into most blatant fiscal trap in 300 years


    There is actually little evidence that Scottish voters are more sympathetic to welfare claimants than English voters. Nor are they over keen on paying taxes.

    The Scottish Parliament has had the power to increase the basic rate of income tax by 3p since 1999. No government has contemplated using the Scottish rate. It will be a brave government that ever does.


    Quite.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,075
    edited October 2015

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT - Heroic 'whataboutary' from the Russians in the Dutch MH17 report:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-v-consultation-part-a.pdf

    The Russians didn't really get that the Dutch report was about what happened technically to cause the crash, and how a similar civil airline accident might be prevented in future
    The Russians should know exactly what aviation accident reports are about - its been the case for decades that they don't apportion blame - that the Russians attempt such blame "shifting" is indicative of how Putin's Russia thinks - the Ukrainians try a bit too - but nowhere near on the scale of the Russians - who also didn't cooperate fully......

    The report does make chilling reading - though mercifully (despite what some of the newspapers are reporting) it looks like the victims knew little or nothing of what overwhelmed them.....
    I only caught a brief report on the news last night but it implied that the Russians were questioning the conclusion of the accident report rather than denying responsibility. I have no idea about this sort of thing but they claimed that it wasn't a BUK missile.
    The Russian story has changed so many times they're probably having difficulty keeping up.....they've also 'lost' the radar data that would confirm their first version that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian jet.....pity that.

    Now its endless whataboutary 'it might have been something else' - the Dutch go through that in detail.....I think they're last line is 'maybe it was a BUK, but it wasn't ours....'

    One of their complaints is that the proportions of shrapnel found in the cockpit bodies ('hundreds' in the Purser) don't exactly match that of a BUK warhead......
    In the weeks after the crash the Russians produced a whole pile of 'satellite' photos that turned out to be doctored Google Earth imagery, photos 'proving' that missiles were in Ukraine that were actually several years old etc etc. Two Ukrainian mil planes were shot at in the same area in the weeks before the accident. It was clear right from the start that the rebels shot down the plane, I guess they just didn't want to admit to accidentally killing 298 foreign civilians. Shame on them.

    Edit: I also don't think that the Russians expected the whole written conversation with the Dutch investigators to form an appendix to their report!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,567
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT - Heroic 'whataboutary' from the Russians in the Dutch MH17 report:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-v-consultation-part-a.pdf

    The Russians didn't really get that the Dutch report was about what happened technically to cause the crash, and how a similar civil airline accident might be prevented in future
    The Russians should know exactly what aviation accident reports are about - its been the case for decades that they don't apportion blame - that the Russians attempt such blame "shifting" is indicative of how Putin's Russia thinks - the Ukrainians try a bit too - but nowhere near on the scale of the Russians - who also didn't cooperate fully......

    The report does make chilling reading - though mercifully (despite what some of the newspapers are reporting) it looks like the victims knew little or nothing of what overwhelmed them.....
    I only caught a brief report on the news last night but it implied that the Russians were questioning the conclusion of the accident report rather than denying responsibility. I have no idea about this sort of thing but they claimed that it wasn't a BUK missile.
    The Russian story has changed so many times they're probably having difficulty keeping up.....they've also 'lost' the radar data that would confirm their first version that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian jet.....pity that.

    Now its endless whataboutary 'it might have been something else' - the Dutch go through that in detail.....I think they're last line is 'maybe it was a BUK, but it wasn't ours....'

    One of their complaints is that the proportions of shrapnel found in the cockpit bodies ('hundreds' in the Purser) don't exactly match that of a BUK warhead......
    The things is, if it was the Russian Rebels, they'd have been better off admitting it and going full on attack along the line of 'why the hell was a plane flying over a war zone?'
    Yes. But since 'rebels' don't remotely have the training to fire a BUK, let alone shoot something down with it, it almost certainly was Russian military - there are even some names out there....and the criminal case is proceeding.....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,567
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT - Heroic 'whataboutary' from the Russians in the Dutch MH17 report:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-v-consultation-part-a.pdf

    The Russians didn't really get that the Dutch report was about what happened technically to cause the crash, and how a similar civil airline accident might be prevented in future
    The Russians should know exactly what aviation accident reports are about - its been the case for decades that they don't apportion blame - that the Russians attempt such blame "shifting" is indicative of how Putin's Russia thinks - the Ukrainians try a bit too - but nowhere near on the scale of the Russians - who also didn't cooperate fully......

    The report does make chilling reading - though mercifully (despite what some of the newspapers are reporting) it looks like the victims knew little or nothing of what overwhelmed them.....
    I only caught a brief report on the news last night but it implied that the Russians were questioning the conclusion of the accident report rather than denying responsibility. I have no idea about this sort of thing but they claimed that it wasn't a BUK missile.
    The Russian story has changed so many times they're probably having difficulty keeping up.....they've also 'lost' the radar data that would confirm their first version that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian jet.....pity that.

    Now its endless whataboutary 'it might have been something else' - the Dutch go through that in detail.....I think they're last line is 'maybe it was a BUK, but it wasn't ours....'

    One of their complaints is that the proportions of shrapnel found in the cockpit bodies ('hundreds' in the Purser) don't exactly match that of a BUK warhead......
    In the weeks after the crash the Russians produced a whole pile of 'satellite' photos that turned out to be doctored Google Earth imagery, photos 'proving' that missiles were in Ukraine that were actually several years old etc etc. Two Ukrainian mil planes were shot at in the same area in the weeks before the accident. It was clear right from the start that the rebels shot down the plane, I guess they just didn't want to admit to accidentally killing 298 foreign civilians. Shame on them.

    Edit: I also don't think that the Russians expected the whole conversation with the Dutch investigators to form an appendix to their report!
    I strongly suspect it was the Russians, on behalf of the rebels that shot it down.....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,567
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT - Heroic 'whataboutary' from the Russians in the Dutch MH17 report:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-v-consultation-part-a.pdf

    The Russians didn't really get that the Dutch report was about what happened technically to cause the crash, and how a similar civil airline accident might be prevented in future
    The Russians should know exactly what aviation accident reports are about - its been the case for decades that they don't apportion blame - that the Russians attempt such blame "shifting" is indicative of how Putin's Russia thinks - the Ukrainians try a bit too - but nowhere near on the scale of the Russians - who also didn't cooperate fully......

    The report does make chilling reading - though mercifully (despite what some of the newspapers are reporting) it looks like the victims knew little or nothing of what overwhelmed them.....
    I only caught a brief report on the news last night but it implied that the Russians were questioning the conclusion of the accident report rather than denying responsibility. I have no idea about this sort of thing but they claimed that it wasn't a BUK missile.
    The Russian story has changed so many times they're probably having difficulty keeping up.....they've also 'lost' the radar data that would confirm their first version that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian jet.....pity that.

    Now its endless whataboutary 'it might have been something else' - the Dutch go through that in detail.....I think they're last line is 'maybe it was a BUK, but it wasn't ours....'

    One of their complaints is that the proportions of shrapnel found in the cockpit bodies ('hundreds' in the Purser) don't exactly match that of a BUK warhead......
    In the weeks after the crash the Russians produced a whole pile of 'satellite' photos that turned out to be doctored Google Earth imagery
    That was embarrassing.....IIRC they used a photo of a 767 instead of a 777 to 'prove' their case.....

    Bellingcat has done some great work:

    https://www.bellingcat.com
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,075

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT - Heroic 'whataboutary' from the Russians in the Dutch MH17 report:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-v-consultation-part-a.pdf

    The Russians didn't really get that the Dutch report was about what happened technically to cause the crash, and how a similar civil airline accident might be prevented in future
    The Russians should know exactly what aviation accident reports are about - its been the case for decades that they don't apportion blame - that the Russians attempt such blame "shifting" is indicative of how Putin's Russia thinks - the Ukrainians try a bit too - but nowhere near on the scale of the Russians - who also didn't cooperate fully......

    The report does make chilling reading - though mercifully (despite what some of the newspapers are reporting) it looks like the victims knew little or nothing of what overwhelmed them.....
    I only caught a brief report on the news last night but it implied that the Russians were questioning the conclusion of the accident report rather than denying responsibility. I have no idea about this sort of thing but they claimed that it wasn't a BUK missile.
    The Russian story has changed so many times they're probably having difficulty keeping up.....they've also 'lost' the radar data that would confirm their first version that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian jet.....pity that.

    Now its endless whataboutary 'it might have been something else' - the Dutch go through that in detail.....I think they're last line is 'maybe it was a BUK, but it wasn't ours....'

    One of their complaints is that the proportions of shrapnel found in the cockpit bodies ('hundreds' in the Purser) don't exactly match that of a BUK warhead......
    In the weeks after the crash the Russians produced a whole pile of 'satellite' photos that turned out to be doctored Google Earth imagery, photos 'proving' that missiles were in Ukraine that were actually several years old etc etc. Two Ukrainian mil planes were shot at in the same area in the weeks before the accident. It was clear right from the start that the rebels shot down the plane, I guess they just didn't want to admit to accidentally killing 298 foreign civilians. Shame on them.

    Edit: I also don't think that the Russians expected the whole conversation with the Dutch investigators to form an appendix to their report!
    I strongly suspect it was the Russians, on behalf of the rebels that shot it down.....
    Which would involve Russia admitting to invading Ukraine. An act of war.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,075
    edited October 2015

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT - Heroic 'whataboutary' from the Russians in the Dutch MH17 report:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-v-consultation-part-a.pdf

    The Russians didn't really get that the Dutch report was about what happened technically to cause the crash, and how a similar civil airline accident might be prevented in future
    The Russians should know exactly what aviation accident reports are about - its been the case for decades that they don't apportion blame - that the Russians attempt such blame "shifting" is indicative of how Putin's Russia thinks - the Ukrainians try a bit too - but nowhere near on the scale of the Russians - who also didn't cooperate fully......

    The report does make chilling reading - though mercifully (despite what some of the newspapers are reporting) it looks like the victims knew little or nothing of what overwhelmed them.....
    I only caught a brief report on the news last night but it implied that the Russians were questioning the conclusion of the accident report rather than denying responsibility. I have no idea about this sort of thing but they claimed that it wasn't a BUK missile.
    The Russian story has changed so many times they're probably having difficulty keeping up.....they've also 'lost' the radar data that would confirm their first version that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian jet.....pity that.

    Now its endless whataboutary 'it might have been something else' - the Dutch go through that in detail.....I think they're last line is 'maybe it was a BUK, but it wasn't ours....'

    One of their complaints is that the proportions of shrapnel found in the cockpit bodies ('hundreds' in the Purser) don't exactly match that of a BUK warhead......
    In the weeks after the crash the Russians produced a whole pile of 'satellite' photos that turned out to be doctored Google Earth imagery
    That was embarrassing.....IIRC they used a photo of a 767 instead of a 777 to 'prove' their case.....

    Bellingcat has done some great work:

    https://www.bellingcat.com
    Ah yes, the 767 image lifted straight from a Boeing publicity shot - as if no-one would notice it was the wrong plane and it was 50 miles from where it should have been! Oh, and the 'Satellite' would have had to be about 10 miles up otherwise the plane was 2 miles long!
    http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/russia-accused-of-faking-pics-to-shift-blame-in-mh17-disaster/story-fnizu68q-1227123846130

    Good link to Bellingcat BTW, a very thorough debunking.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    fitalass said:

    Interesting article in the Herald Scotland - SNP being lured into most blatant fiscal trap in 300 years

    As The Herald reported yesterday, the think tank IPPR calculates that the average family in Scotland will be £200 worse off
    That's a sizeable difference from the £1000+ a year being bandied around by all and sundry in the UK wide press.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,196
    OT Does anyone know the penalty for a chancellor who breaks the budget surplus law?

  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,851
    edited October 2015
    Roger said:

    OT Does anyone know the penalty for a chancellor who breaks the budget surplus law?

    Presumably the same as one who breaks the Climate Change CO2 Target law or the Reduction in Poverty target law, if they are still on the books.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,567
    This just gets worse:

    At the time [of Watson's accusation of an un-named former cabinet minister], terminally ill Lord Brittan was in London’s Princess Grace Hospital recovering from a major operation and was not available for the interview.

    He was well enough to be questioned on May 30 at the offices of his lawyers, Mishcon de Reya, in central London.

    Detectives turned up late – causing Lord Brittan added distress – and farcically brought a broken tape recorder, meaning they had to take down his comments in long hand.
    The interview lasted just 30 minutes. Lord Brittan provided a prepared statement and the officers said they had no supplementary questions.

    Sources said the officers appeared ‘embarrassed’ as there was ‘absolutely no credible or corroborative evidence’ to support the rape claim made by a hardline Labour activist with severe mental health problems known as Jane.



    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3271471/Brittan-police-panicked-Tom-Watson-Officers-requested-interview-peer-just-two-days-Labour-MP-complained-handling-case.html#ixzz3oWI17Q3a
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,922

    This just gets worse:

    At the time [of Watson's accusation of an un-named former cabinet minister], terminally ill Lord Brittan was in London’s Princess Grace Hospital recovering from a major operation and was not available for the interview.

    He was well enough to be questioned on May 30 at the offices of his lawyers, Mishcon de Reya, in central London.

    Detectives turned up late – causing Lord Brittan added distress – and farcically brought a broken tape recorder, meaning they had to take down his comments in long hand.
    The interview lasted just 30 minutes. Lord Brittan provided a prepared statement and the officers said they had no supplementary questions.

    Sources said the officers appeared ‘embarrassed’ as there was ‘absolutely no credible or corroborative evidence’ to support the rape claim made by a hardline Labour activist with severe mental health problems known as Jane.



    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3271471/Brittan-police-panicked-Tom-Watson-Officers-requested-interview-peer-just-two-days-Labour-MP-complained-handling-case.html#ixzz3oWI17Q3a

    I'd like to know what made the Met reopen their investigation two days before they received the letter asking them to that was sent by Watson via the CPS.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited October 2015
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT - Heroic 'whataboutary' from the Russians in the Dutch MH17 report:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-v-consultation-part-a.pdf

    The Russians didn't really get that the Dutch report was about what happened technically to cause the crash, and how a similar civil airline accident might be prevented in future
    The Russians should know exactly what aviation accident reports are about - its been the case for decades that they don't apportion blame - that the Russians attempt such blame "shifting" is indicative of how Putin's Russia thinks - the Ukrainians try a bit too - but nowhere near on the scale of the Russians - who also didn't cooperate fully......

    The report does make chilling reading - though mercifully (despite what some of the newspapers are reporting) it looks like the victims knew little or nothing of what overwhelmed them.....
    .

    Now its endless whataboutary 'it might have been something else' - the Dutch go through that in detail.....I think they're last line is 'maybe it was a BUK, but it wasn't ours....'

    One of their complaints is that the proportions of shrapnel found in the cockpit bodies ('hundreds' in the Purser) don't exactly match that of a BUK warhead......
    In the weeks after the crash the Russians produced a whole pile of 'satellite' photos that turned out to be doctored Google Earth imagery, photos 'proving' that missiles were in Ukraine that were actually several years old etc etc. Two Ukrainian mil planes were shot at in the same area in the weeks before the accident. It was clear right from the start that the rebels shot down the plane, I guess they just didn't want to admit to accidentally killing 298 foreign civilians. Shame on them.

    Edit: I also don't think that the Russians expected the whole conversation with the Dutch investigators to form an appendix to their report!
    I strongly suspect it was the Russians, on behalf of the rebels that shot it down.....
    Which would involve Russia admitting to invading Ukraine. An act of war.
    And, what are you going to do about it ? Write more posts in PB ? You know the western governments are weako. THey can bomb out tin-pot dictators but then have not got a clue who fills the vacuum.

    Russia is a different ball-game. I think we will send 20 soldiers to Latvia or something.
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    edited October 2015


    America really needs a better political system, preferably one with less money swilling around in it.

    You'll be lucky.

    The current best estimate is that, after the primaries are over, the GOP will spend $2 billion plus and the Democrats maybe a quarter as much again.

    It used to be said that the Presidency was too big to buy. No longer.

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Did Hillary go under the knife ? She looks a bit different. But she wouldn't do that now. Must have done it earlier.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,312
    Roger said:

    OT Does anyone know the penalty for a chancellor who breaks the budget surplus law?

    What we need is a contract with the Saudi criminal justice system by which they provide their expertise in lashing prisoners but keeping them alive.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,922
    surbiton said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT - Heroic 'whataboutary' from the Russians in the Dutch MH17 report:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-v-consultation-part-a.pdf

    The Russians didn't really get that the Dutch report was about what happened technically to cause the crash, and how a similar civil airline accident might be prevented in future
    The Russians should know exactly what aviation accident reports are about - its been the case for decades that they don't apportion blame - that the Russians attempt such blame "shifting" is indicative of how Putin's Russia thinks - the Ukrainians try a bit too - but nowhere near on the scale of the Russians - who also didn't cooperate fully......

    The report does make chilling reading - though mercifully (despite what some of the newspapers are reporting) it looks like the victims knew little or nothing of what overwhelmed them.....
    .

    Now its endless whataboutary 'it might have been something else' - the Dutch go through that in detail.....I think they're last line is 'maybe it was a BUK, but it wasn't ours....'

    One of their complaints is that the proportions of shrapnel found in the cockpit bodies ('hundreds' in the Purser) don't exactly match that of a BUK warhead......
    In the weeks after the crash the Russians produced a whole pile of 'satellite' photos that turned out to be doctored Google Earth imagery, photos 'proving' that missiles were in Ukraine that were actually several years old etc etc. Two Ukrainian mil planes were shot at in the same area in the weeks before the accident. It was clear right from the start that the rebels shot down the plane, I guess they just didn't want to admit to accidentally killing 298 foreign civilians. Shame on them.

    Edit: I also don't think that the Russians expected the whole conversation with the Dutch investigators to form an appendix to their report!
    I strongly suspect it was the Russians, on behalf of the rebels that shot it down.....
    Which would involve Russia admitting to invading Ukraine. An act of war.
    And, what are you going to do about it ? Write more posts in PB ? You know the western governments are weako. THey can bomb out tin-pot dictators but then have not got a clue who fills the vacuum.

    Russia is a different ball-game. I think we will send 20 soldiers to Latvia or something.
    Just to check: are you supporting Russia's actions?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,196
    Surbiton

    "Russia is a different ball-game. I think we will send 20 soldiers to Latvia or something."

    Maybe we should pass a law that Russia shouldn't do it again?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,922


    America really needs a better political system, preferably one with less money swilling around in it.

    You'll be lucky.

    The current best estimate is that, after the primaries are over, the GOP will spend $2 billion plus and the Democrats maybe a quarter as much again.

    It used to be said that the Presidency was too big to buy. No longer.
    Yep. Politics in the US is sick, poisoned by money.

    It will not end well.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Sandpit said:

    Surely at 1/3 she should be a lay? .

    Bill gave up many decades ago. Looked elsewhere.
  • If nothing else, Jim Webb sealed off the awkward, sorta creepy white guy vote for himself last night.
  • Roger said:

    OT Does anyone know the penalty for a chancellor who breaks the budget surplus law?

    This question should have framed Labour's response: an amendment barring any Chancellor from office who had run five successive deficits.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,311

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT - Heroic 'whataboutary' from the Russians in the Dutch MH17 report:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-v-consultation-part-a.pdf

    The Russians didn't really get that the Dutch report was about what happened technically to cause the crash, and how a similar civil airline accident might be prevented in future
    The Russians should know exactly what aviation accident reports are about - its been the case for decades that they don't apportion blame - that the Russians attempt such blame "shifting" is indicative of how Putin's Russia thinks - the Ukrainians try a bit too - but nowhere near on the scale of the Russians - who also didn't cooperate fully......

    The report does make chilling reading - though mercifully (despite what some of the newspapers are reporting) it looks like the victims knew little or nothing of what overwhelmed them.....
    I only caught a brief report on the news last night but it implied that the Russians were questioning the conclusion of the accident report rather than denying responsibility. I have no idea about this sort of thing but they claimed that it wasn't a BUK missile.
    The Russian story has changed so many times they're probably having difficulty keeping up.....they've also 'lost' the radar data that would confirm their first version that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian jet.....pity that.

    Now its endless whataboutary 'it might have been something else' - the Dutch go through that in detail.....I think they're last line is 'maybe it was a BUK, but it wasn't ours....'

    One of their complaints is that the proportions of shrapnel found in the cockpit bodies ('hundreds' in the Purser) don't exactly match that of a BUK warhead......
    In the weeks after the crash the Russians produced a whole pile of 'satellite' photos that turned out to be doctored Google Earth imagery, photos 'proving' that missiles were in Ukraine that were actually several years old etc etc. Two Ukrainian mil planes were shot at in the same area in the weeks before the accident. It was clear right from the start that the rebels shot down the plane, I guess they just didn't want to admit to accidentally killing 298 foreign civilians. Shame on them.

    Edit: I also don't think that the Russians expected the whole conversation with the Dutch investigators to form an appendix to their report!
    I strongly suspect it was the Russians, on behalf of the rebels that shot it down.....
    Most Ukrainian rebels are Russian soldiers dressed in civilian clothes.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,312
    Very limited clips and I will admit being a complete wimp in not watching but wow, is Saunders really that bad? Is his job simply to make Hilary look younger and coherent? Does he not own a comb?

    It seems to me that any bet against Hilary is a bet that her health will fail (very unlikely) or she gets indicted (even more unlikely). Laying at 1/3 for the democratic nomination looks very brave.

    Can the republicans find a credible candidate (ie not Trump) to oppose her? They seem to be struggling so far.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,312
    300 up for Pakistan. Cricket played under these conditions and with minimal attendance is really dull. Our bowlers are just dying out there.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,262
    Somewhat off-topic, but this is even harsher than Dan Hodges' comments on Ronald McDonnell and elephant traps:

    "The manner of his U-turn implied that Denis Healey in his present state would be a more effective shadow Chancellor. For McDonnell to abandon that policy without any discussion with colleagues highlighted the isolation of a cabal which feels it can only carry the Shadow Cabinet and PLP by bouncing them into a fait accompli."

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/corbyn-can-no-longer-ignore-the-spectre-of-his-imminent-demise-a6692766.html

    The reason it is harsh is of course because it is true. John McDonnell has managed the remarkable and indeed almost unbelievable feat of being much worse than expected as Shadow Chancellor. Given what was expected, that's a truly damning indictment of how bad a mistake Corbyn has made. And we are still less than a month in to what could be five years of this.

    It is the poor appointments Corbyn has made that are going to damage the Labour party so badly even if Corbyn himself moves on: McDonnell, Abbott, Powell, Smith, the Eagle twins. There's not a shred of talent among the lot. When Burnham and Benn are your only impressive spokesmen ('impressive' being a relative term here) there's a real problem.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349
    edited October 2015
    Roger said:

    OT Does anyone know the penalty for a chancellor who breaks the budget surplus law?

    The offending Chancellor gets spat on by John McDonnell and sat on and then traduced by Dianne Abbott.

    There are worse fates but you need to read a SeanT novel to contextualise the horror.

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,514
    Just listened to Abbott on the Today prog. It seems clear that Labour are putting all their eggs in one basket and saying that they will be right because there will be a recession next year.. or that's how it sounds to me.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Roger said:

    Surbiton

    "Russia is a different ball-game. I think we will send 20 soldiers to Latvia or something."

    Maybe we should pass a law that Russia shouldn't do it again?

    With severe penalties ! They wouldn't be allowed to even have a goalkeeper. That will teach Putin.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,262

    Just listened to Abbott on the Today prog. It seems clear that Labour are putting all their eggs in one basket and saying that they will be right because there will be a recession next year.. or that's how it sounds to me.

    THey could be right about the recession - indeed, I would be surprised if one does not come along fairly soon. But there were several under Thatcher and that didn't stop people voting Conservative. If Labour look like a bunch of dangerous lunatics, it makes them even less likely to be trusted with running the national economy in an emergency. That's why Brown, and to a lesser extent Osborne, were wise when in opposition to pitch for the 'sober and responsible' line rather than the ideological one. Nobody is going to think that of McDonnell.
  • ydoethur said:

    Somewhat off-topic, but this is even harsher than Dan Hodges' comments on Ronald McDonnell and elephant traps:

    "The manner of his U-turn implied that Denis Healey in his present state would be a more effective shadow Chancellor. For McDonnell to abandon that policy without any discussion with colleagues highlighted the isolation of a cabal which feels it can only carry the Shadow Cabinet and PLP by bouncing them into a fait accompli."

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/corbyn-can-no-longer-ignore-the-spectre-of-his-imminent-demise-a6692766.html

    The reason it is harsh is of course because it is true. John McDonnell has managed the remarkable and indeed almost unbelievable feat of being much worse than expected as Shadow Chancellor. Given what was expected, that's a truly damning indictment of how bad a mistake Corbyn has made. And we are still less than a month in to what could be five years of this.

    It is the poor appointments Corbyn has made that are going to damage the Labour party so badly even if Corbyn himself moves on: McDonnell, Abbott, Powell, Smith, the Eagle twins. There's not a shred of talent among the lot. When Burnham and Benn are your only impressive spokesmen ('impressive' being a relative term here) there's a real problem.

    Labour is an idea whose time has gone. Have I said that before?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,608
    surbiton said:


    And, what are you going to do about it ? Write more posts in PB ? You know the western governments are weako. THey can bomb out tin-pot dictators but then have not got a clue who fills the vacuum.

    Russia is a different ball-game. I think we will send 20 soldiers to Latvia or something.

    Don't mock 20 soldiers to Latvia.

    The Great Dance has carefully calibrated moves so that there is no misunderstanding. A miscalculation, a disproportionate response, at any point can lead to calamity
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 7,366
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT - Heroic 'whataboutary' from the Russians in the Dutch MH17 report:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-v-consultation-part-a.pdf

    The Russians didn't really get that the Dutch report was about what happened technically to cause the crash, and how a similar civil airline accident might be prevented in future
    The Russians should know exactly what aviation accident reports are about - its been the case for decades that they don't apportion blame - that the Russians attempt such blame "shifting" is indicative of how Putin's Russia thinks - the Ukrainians try a bit too - but nowhere near on the scale of the Russians - who also didn't cooperate fully......

    The report does make chilling reading - though mercifully (despite what some of the newspapers are reporting) it looks like the victims knew little or nothing of what overwhelmed them.....
    I only caught a brief report on the news last night but it implied that the Russians were questioning the conclusion of the accident report rather than denying responsibility. I have no idea about this sort of thing but they claimed that it wasn't a BUK missile.
    The Russian story has changed so many times they're probably having difficulty keeping up.....they've also 'lost' the radar data that would confirm their first version that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian jet.....pity that.

    Now its endless whataboutary 'it might have been something else' - the Dutch go through that in detail.....I think they're last line is 'maybe it was a BUK, but it wasn't ours....'

    One of their complaints is that the proportions of shrapnel found in the cockpit bodies ('hundreds' in the Purser) don't exactly match that of a BUK warhead......
    In the weeks after the crash the Russians produced a whole pile of 'satellite' photos that turned out to be doctored Google Earth imagery, photos 'proving' that missiles were in Ukraine that were actually several years old etc etc. Two Ukrainian mil planes were shot at in the same area in the weeks before the accident. It was clear right from the start that the rebels shot down the plane, I guess they just didn't want to admit to accidentally killing 298 foreign civilians. Shame on them.

    Edit: I also don't think that the Russians expected the whole written conversation with the Dutch investigators to form an appendix to their report!
    Oh dear dear dear. It seems some people here are more than a little upset that the report does not state (as would have been quite within its remit without apportioning blame) that the missile was fired from rebel held territory. Keep flapping guys, I'm sure no-one will notice...
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,851
    chestnut said:

    fitalass said:

    Interesting article in the Herald Scotland - SNP being lured into most blatant fiscal trap in 300 years

    As The Herald reported yesterday, the think tank IPPR calculates that the average family in Scotland will be £200 worse off
    That's a sizeable difference from the £1000+ a year being bandied around by all and sundry in the UK wide press.

    I'm afraid I'm reduced to the point that when I read this sort of thing from Nats:

    >This must be the most transparent fiscal trap since the Malt Tax in 1713.

    I want to have it read in his Carry On voice by an exhumed Kenneth Williams.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,263

    Just listened to Abbott on the Today prog. It seems clear that Labour are putting all their eggs in one basket and saying that they will be right because there will be a recession next year.. or that's how it sounds to me.

    They are trying to Long Term Economic Planise "Osborne's Mismanagement of the Economy."

    It is not a dreadful strategy and if it wasn't being pushed by utter incompetents, who are unable to articulate any kind of constant message. it might have some impact.

    As it stands, however, to hear Abbott et al say it is laughable and not just for PB Tories; most people will not be able to relate this supposed catastrophic mismanagement to their own lives.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,851
    A bonus morning quote from His Eminence Professor Sir Richard Murphy:

    >This is an issue that I cannot address in depth in an already wrong blog.

    I would say "typo", but L and W are at opposite ends of the keyboard, so I'm going with Freudian Slip.
    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/10/13/whats-wrong-with-facebook-uks-accounts-and-what-reforms-are-now-needed/







  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,108
    Good morning, everyone.

    Miss Fitalass, didn't see it, but Tim Marshall[sp] was perhaps the single best journalist (head of diplomatic affairs or something similar) at Sky. Very well-informed chap.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,399
    edited October 2015
    I heard a report on R5L yesterday saying that the Ukranian rebel leaders who are likely to have ordered the missile launch have been "changed" so it will be awkward to find and prosecute them. It may be that the Russians have already removed them.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,567

    Oh dear dear dear. It seems some people here are more than a little upset that the report does not state (as would have been quite within its remit without apportioning blame) that the missile was fired from rebel held territory. Keep flapping guys, I'm sure no-one will notice...

    Why would they prejudice the Dutch Criminal investigation?

    How much of the report have you read?

    It sets out fairly clearly the area where the missile was likely fired from .....who did the firing is not in their remit.....
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Oh dear dear dear. It seems some people here are more than a little upset that the report does not state (as would have been quite within its remit without apportioning blame) that the missile was fired from rebel held territory. Keep flapping guys, I'm sure no-one will notice...

    Why would they prejudice the Dutch Criminal investigation?

    How much of the report have you read?

    It sets out fairly clearly the area where the missile was likely fired from .....who did the firing is not in their remit.....
    Shilling for Putin is not an easy ask at times like this.
  • Just listened to Abbott on the Today prog. It seems clear that Labour are putting all their eggs in one basket and saying that they will be right because there will be a recession next year.. or that's how it sounds to me.

    Yes, and it all sounds familiar. Remember the flat lining growth, cost of living tactic that soon became ridiculous as we became a) fastest growing g7 economy and b) wages stated rising .

    So, no recession next year and Labour's at a dead end. (Not that I dont think it already is)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,461
    This performance should help smooth Hillary's path to the nomination although I still expect Sanders to win New Hampshire and do well in the Northeast and liberal states. Presently most polls show Biden leading the HOP top tier but Hillary trailing all bar Trump and Cruz (and she even trailed Trump with Fox yesterday) so if Hillary does not see her numbers rise Biden may still run as he may if any more e-mail revelations emerge
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988
    fitalass said:

    Interesting article in the Herald Scotland - SNP being lured into most blatant fiscal trap in 300 years

    mcwhirter has lost it.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,514
    edited October 2015
    TOPPING said:

    Just listened to Abbott on the Today prog. It seems clear that Labour are putting all their eggs in one basket and saying that they will be right because there will be a recession next year.. or that's how it sounds to me.

    They are trying to Long Term Economic Planise "Osborne's Mismanagement of the Economy."

    It is not a dreadful strategy and if it wasn't being pushed by utter incompetents, who are unable to articulate any kind of constant message. it might have some impact.

    As it stands, however, to hear Abbott et al say it is laughable and not just for PB Tories; most people will not be able to relate this supposed catastrophic mismanagement to their own lives.
    Quite so, she said that a lot, but it was the slip at the end that caught my attention. Betting the house on a recession is no bad strategy if one comes along but as you say there is no one in Labour to articulate anything in a sensible way. Balls talked balls but at least he sounded as tho' he knew what he was talking about , even if it was tosh.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988

    fitalass said:

    Interesting article in the Herald Scotland - SNP being lured into most blatant fiscal trap in 300 years


    There is actually little evidence that Scottish voters are more sympathetic to welfare claimants than English voters. Nor are they over keen on paying taxes.

    The Scottish Parliament has had the power to increase the basic rate of income tax by 3p since 1999. No government has contemplated using the Scottish rate. It will be a brave government that ever does.


    Quite.
    Everybody in Scotland knows it is a unionist con , not a trap. We do not need clowns like Mcwhirter , thinking he is smart. Any change in tax means a reduction in Scottish budget to match and so it is not powers devolved , just powers retained. Hopefully the SNP will have the cojones to vote down their NON Powers bill when it comes up for approval.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988
    chestnut said:

    fitalass said:

    Interesting article in the Herald Scotland - SNP being lured into most blatant fiscal trap in 300 years

    As The Herald reported yesterday, the think tank IPPR calculates that the average family in Scotland will be £200 worse off
    That's a sizeable difference from the £1000+ a year being bandied around by all and sundry in the UK wide press.

    Is that the tame Tory thinktank , surprise surprise they cannot count.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,922

    Oh dear dear dear. It seems some people here are more than a little upset that the report does not state (as would have been quite within its remit without apportioning blame) that the missile was fired from rebel held territory. Keep flapping guys, I'm sure no-one will notice...

    Why was it in their remit to say where the missile was fired from? That issue was irrelevant to the investigation as set out, at least as far as I see it. Where it was fired from, and who fired it, is irrelevant to what caused the plane to break up, or recommendations as to how such an incident could be avoided in the future.

    The type of missile and warhead was within the remit, as they were trying to explain what caused the plane to break up, not who fired it.

    This is common with all sorts of accident reports: the main requirement is to find out what happened, and leave any prosecutions for who did it (whether by incompetence or malice) to the relevant authorities.

    We'll see what happens when the Dutch criminal investigation report is released.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,311
    DavidL said:

    Very limited clips and I will admit being a complete wimp in not watching but wow, is Saunders really that bad? Is his job simply to make Hilary look younger and coherent? Does he not own a comb?

    It seems to me that any bet against Hilary is a bet that her health will fail (very unlikely) or she gets indicted (even more unlikely). Laying at 1/3 for the democratic nomination looks very brave.

    Can the republicans find a credible candidate (ie not Trump) to oppose her? They seem to be struggling so far.

    DavidL said:

    Very limited clips and I will admit being a complete wimp in not watching but wow, is Saunders really that bad? Is his job simply to make Hilary look younger and coherent? Does he not own a comb?

    It seems to me that any bet against Hilary is a bet that her health will fail (very unlikely) or she gets indicted (even more unlikely). Laying at 1/3 for the democratic nomination looks very brave.

    Can the republicans find a credible candidate (ie not Trump) to oppose her? They seem to be struggling so far.

    I think the answer is Rubio, but I'm not sure the Republicans agree.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988
    surbiton said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT - Heroic 'whataboutary' from the Russians in the Dutch MH17 report:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-v-consultation-part-a.pdf

    The Russians didn't really get that the Dutch report was about what happened technically to cause the crash, and how a similar civil airline accident might be prevented in future
    The Russians should know exactly what aviation accident reports are about - its been the case for decades that they don't apportion blame - that the Russians attempt such blame "shifting" is indicative of how Putin's Russia thinks - the Ukrainians try a bit too - but nowhere near on the scale of the Russians - who also didn't cooperate fully......

    The report does make chilling reading - though mercifully (despite what some of the newspapers are reporting) it looks like the victims knew little or nothing of what overwhelmed them.....
    .

    Now its endless whataboutary 'it might have been something else' - the Dutch go through that in detail.....I think they're last line is 'maybe it was a BUK, but it wasn't ours....'

    One of their complaints is that the proportions of shrapnel found in the cockpit bodies ('hundreds' in the Purser) don't exactly match that of a BUK warhead......

    Edit: I also don't think that the Russians expected the whole conversation with the Dutch investigators to form an appendix to their report!
    I strongly suspect it was the Russians, on behalf of the rebels that shot it down.....
    Which would involve Russia admitting to invading Ukraine. An act of war.
    And, what are you going to do about it ? Write more posts in PB ? You know the western governments are weako. THey can bomb out tin-pot dictators but then have not got a clue who fills the vacuum.

    Russia is a different ball-game. I think we will send 20 soldiers to Latvia or something.
    The jingoistic frothers on here will not like you posting the truth like that. We are a world superpower don't you know , we have nuclear submarines commanded by Doddery lurking all over the oceans waiting to promote our power.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988
    MattW said:

    chestnut said:

    fitalass said:

    Interesting article in the Herald Scotland - SNP being lured into most blatant fiscal trap in 300 years

    As The Herald reported yesterday, the think tank IPPR calculates that the average family in Scotland will be £200 worse off
    That's a sizeable difference from the £1000+ a year being bandied around by all and sundry in the UK wide press.
    I'm afraid I'm reduced to the point that when I read this sort of thing from Nats:

    >This must be the most transparent fiscal trap since the Malt Tax in 1713.

    I want to have it read in his Carry On voice by an exhumed Kenneth Williams.

    You absolute turnip , it was not a Nationalist that wrote it.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 7,366

    Oh dear dear dear. It seems some people here are more than a little upset that the report does not state (as would have been quite within its remit without apportioning blame) that the missile was fired from rebel held territory. Keep flapping guys, I'm sure no-one will notice...

    Why would they prejudice the Dutch Criminal investigation?

    How much of the report have you read?

    It sets out fairly clearly the area where the missile was likely fired from .....who did the firing is not in their remit.....
    Yes it does. From a 320 square kilometre area within Eastern Ukraine which excludes neither party. It's not in their remit to say who fired it but it is within their remit to state what firing area is consistent with the damage to the aircraft. And that's what they've done.
  • DavidL said:

    Very limited clips and I will admit being a complete wimp in not watching but wow, is Saunders really that bad? Is his job simply to make Hilary look younger and coherent? Does he not own a comb?

    It seems to me that any bet against Hilary is a bet that her health will fail (very unlikely) or she gets indicted (even more unlikely). Laying at 1/3 for the democratic nomination looks very brave.

    Can the republicans find a credible candidate (ie not Trump) to oppose her? They seem to be struggling so far.

    DavidL said:

    Very limited clips and I will admit being a complete wimp in not watching but wow, is Saunders really that bad? Is his job simply to make Hilary look younger and coherent? Does he not own a comb?

    It seems to me that any bet against Hilary is a bet that her health will fail (very unlikely) or she gets indicted (even more unlikely). Laying at 1/3 for the democratic nomination looks very brave.

    Can the republicans find a credible candidate (ie not Trump) to oppose her? They seem to be struggling so far.

    I think the answer is Rubio, but I'm not sure the Republicans agree.
    The answer is Trump, possibly the first PotUS to be elected entirely by voters who neither own nor feel the lack of passports.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,461

    DavidL said:

    Very limited clips and I will admit being a complete wimp in not watching but wow, is Saunders really that bad? Is his job simply to make Hilary look younger and coherent? Does he not own a comb?

    It seems to me that any bet against Hilary is a bet that her health will fail (very unlikely) or she gets indicted (even more unlikely). Laying at 1/3 for the democratic nomination looks very brave.

    Can the republicans find a credible candidate (ie not Trump) to oppose her? They seem to be struggling so far.

    DavidL said:

    Very limited clips and I will admit being a complete wimp in not watching but wow, is Saunders really that bad? Is his job simply to make Hilary look younger and coherent? Does he not own a comb?

    It seems to me that any bet against Hilary is a bet that her health will fail (very unlikely) or she gets indicted (even more unlikely). Laying at 1/3 for the democratic nomination looks very brave.

    Can the republicans find a credible candidate (ie not Trump) to oppose her? They seem to be struggling so far.

    I think the answer is Rubio, but I'm not sure the Republicans agree.
    Being pro immigration is Rubio and Jeb's problem. Trump and Cruz are anti. Interestingly Speedy seemed to be watching a different debate from OGH and most punters in his comments on the last thread saying Hillary bombed
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,937
    HYUFD said:

    This performance should help smooth Hillary's path to the nomination although I still expect Sanders to win New Hampshire and do well in the Northeast and liberal states. Presently most polls show Biden leading the HOP top tier but Hillary trailing all bar Trump and Cruz (and she even trailed Trump with Fox yesterday) so if Hillary does not see her numbers rise Biden may still run as he may if any more e-mail revelations emerge

    It's getting very late in the day for Biden to run for both practical and legal reasons. You can't simply run a campaign from nowhere, even if you're Vice President. You need activists, funding and logistical arrangements. You need a campaign plan and campaign team to push the right message to the right people at the right time. All this takes planning and personnel and they take time to put in place. The process is (sensibly) later this year; there's been no rush backwards to the New Year unlike 2012. Even so, the Iowa caucus is at the beginning of February and New Hampshire a week later. That's just three and a half months from now with Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year eating into the time available.

    Then there's the matter of actually filing for these elections. To be in the race you need to be on the ballot and uncertainty there has a knock-on effect on fundraising capacity, both because doubt impacts on the candidate in question's ability to fundraise, and also because pledges are being made elsewhere in the meantime.

    All of which is to say that Biden won't run. It's too late in the day to take on Hillary and it'll soon be too late in the day to take on anyone else even should she withdraw.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,935
    Ultimately it hardly matters who brought down the plane, sadly. The Russians cannot be punished with more than sanctions presumably, if it was them, and it's not as though either side and it's supporters will accept any conclusion that apportions blame to their side, so would the political situation even change at all?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,108
    Long ramble about the potential re-introduction of wolves to Scotland I found quite interesting:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33017511
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,935
    Boring democratic primary. Hopefully Biden can liven it up but it still looks a foregone conclusion. Dull.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,466
    Many thanks to Speedy for his very useful succinct summaries of the debate on the last thread. He reaches a different conclusion and thinks O'Malley won and Clinton failed to settle doubts, but the betting markets clearly disagree. Certainly it doesn't matter whether O'Malley did well - he's not going to get anywhere. Possibly the key moment was Sanders catching the mood with "We're sick and tired of talking about your emails", which in context helps Hillary a lot if it reverberates.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,791
    kle4 said:

    Ultimately it hardly matters who brought down the plane, sadly. The Russians cannot be punished with more than sanctions presumably, if it was them, and it's not as though either side and it's supporters will accept any conclusion that apportions blame to their side, so would the political situation even change at all?

    Much more could be done with sanctions.

    You will note that Russia is making strenuous diplomatic efforts to get existing sanctions lifted (without actually in substance altering the behaviour complained of). We should do the reverse and ratchet them up a couple of notches. Wars don't have to be fought with soldiers. We have little green men of our own and they sit in the City and Canary Wharf.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Urgh, what a terribly purple article - a hotchpotch of analogies and cliches.
    Reverse chronology is a familiar literary conceit (Harold Pinter’s Betrayal; Martin Amis’s Time’s Arrow), but never has a new political leader accepted the imminence of his ending, and acted accordingly. While asking Corbyn to pioneer this concept may be extending his embrace of a “new politics” into a suicidal death-hug too far, Monday’s raucous Parliamentary Labour Party meeting should have left him in no doubt. Labour is heading unavoidably towards a nuclear civil war between its parliamentary Roundheads and its membership Cavaliers, who are adopting a form of Mutually Assured Destruction under which no consequence, however cataclysmic, will constitute a deterrent.
    ydoethur said:

    Somewhat off-topic, but this is even harsher than Dan Hodges' comments on Ronald McDonnell and elephant traps:

    "The manner of his U-turn implied that Denis Healey in his present state would be a more effective shadow Chancellor. For McDonnell to abandon that policy without any discussion with colleagues highlighted the isolation of a cabal which feels it can only carry the Shadow Cabinet and PLP by bouncing them into a fait accompli."

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/corbyn-can-no-longer-ignore-the-spectre-of-his-imminent-demise-a6692766.html

    The reason it is harsh is of course because it is true. John McDonnell has managed the remarkable and indeed almost unbelievable feat of being much worse than expected as Shadow Chancellor. Given what was expected, that's a truly damning indictment of how bad a mistake Corbyn has made. And we are still less than a month in to what could be five years of this.

    It is the poor appointments Corbyn has made that are going to damage the Labour party so badly even if Corbyn himself moves on: McDonnell, Abbott, Powell, Smith, the Eagle twins. There's not a shred of talent among the lot. When Burnham and Benn are your only impressive spokesmen ('impressive' being a relative term here) there's a real problem.

  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    Long ramble about the potential re-introduction of wolves to Scotland I found quite interesting:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33017511

    I saw something about this on tv last night, wolves have killed 1000s of sheep in France, people want to introduce them into the Highlands to keep the deer population down who are eating too many plants.

    It will never happen, can you imagine the picture of Sturgeon with a wolf's hat on being called Bambi killer.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,775

    HYUFD said:

    This performance should help smooth Hillary's path to the nomination although I still expect Sanders to win New Hampshire and do well in the Northeast and liberal states. Presently most polls show Biden leading the HOP top tier but Hillary trailing all bar Trump and Cruz (and she even trailed Trump with Fox yesterday) so if Hillary does not see her numbers rise Biden may still run as he may if any more e-mail revelations emerge

    It's getting very late in the day for Biden to run for both practical and legal reasons. You can't simply run a campaign from nowhere, even if you're Vice President. You need activists, funding and logistical arrangements. You need a campaign plan and campaign team to push the right message to the right people at the right time. All this takes planning and personnel and they take time to put in place. The process is (sensibly) later this year; there's been no rush backwards to the New Year unlike 2012. Even so, the Iowa caucus is at the beginning of February and New Hampshire a week later. That's just three and a half months from now with Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year eating into the time available.

    Then there's the matter of actually filing for these elections. To be in the race you need to be on the ballot and uncertainty there has a knock-on effect on fundraising capacity, both because doubt impacts on the candidate in question's ability to fundraise, and also because pledges are being made elsewhere in the meantime.

    All of which is to say that Biden won't run. It's too late in the day to take on Hillary and it'll soon be too late in the day to take on anyone else even should she withdraw.
    I believe he has been told that technically he has until the end of this month to get on the ballot. This weekend was suppose to be the final decision point. Silence. I think my prediction that he would run has proved wrong and I've lost a few quid by looks of things. Still, hoping to clean up on the GOP race.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,399

    From a position of total ignorance (like most). I suspect the missile was launched by Ukranian rebels on their own or under the command of Russians who are now languishing in a gulag and unreachable.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,311
    malcolmg said:

    surbiton said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT - Heroic 'whataboutary' from the Russians in the Dutch MH17 report:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-v-consultation-part-a.pdf

    The Russians didn't really get that the Dutch report was about what happened technically to cause the crash, and how a similar civil airline accident might be prevented in future
    The Russians should know exactly what aviation accident reports are about - its been the case for decades that they don't apportion blame - that the Russians attempt such blame "shifting" is indicative of how Putin's Russia thinks - the Ukrainians try a bit too - but nowhere near on the scale of the Russians - who also didn't cooperate fully......

    The report does make chilling reading - though mercifully (despite what some of the newspapers are reporting) it looks like the victims knew little or nothing of what overwhelmed them.....
    .

    Now its endless whataboutary 'it might have been something else' - the Dutch go through that in detail.....I think they're last line is 'maybe it was a BUK, but it wasn't ours....'

    One of their complaints is that the proportions of shrapnel found in the cockpit bodies ('hundreds' in the Purser) don't exactly match that of a BUK warhead......

    Edit: I also don't think that the Russians expected the whole conversation with the Dutch investigators to form an appendix to their report!
    I strongly suspect it was the Russians, on behalf of the rebels that shot it down.....
    Which would involve Russia admitting to invading Ukraine. An act of war.
    And, what are you going to do about it ? Write more posts in PB ? You know the western governments are weako. THey can bomb out tin-pot dictators but then have not got a clue who fills the vacuum.

    Russia is a different ball-game. I think we will send 20 soldiers to Latvia or something.
    The jingoistic frothers on here will not like you posting the truth like that. We are a world superpower don't you know , we have nuclear submarines commanded by Doddery lurking all over the oceans waiting to promote our power.
    Now yer talking.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,935
    antifrank said:

    kle4 said:

    Ultimately it hardly matters who brought down the plane, sadly. The Russians cannot be punished with more than sanctions presumably, if it was them, and it's not as though either side and it's supporters will accept any conclusion that apportions blame to their side, so would the political situation even change at all?

    Much more could be done with sanctions.

    You will note that Russia is making strenuous diplomatic efforts to get existing sanctions lifted (without actually in substance altering the behaviour complained of). We should do the reverse and ratchet them up a couple of notches. Wars don't have to be fought with soldiers. We have little green men of our own and they sit in the City and Canary Wharf.
    Much can be done with sanctions but it doesn't feel like there's that much of an appetite to take them further, it seemed hard enough to get them as far as they were. Short of a photo of Putin firing a missle personally, it feels like only token action would ever be taken.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,108
    Mr. 63, some have called for wolves to be reintroduced to southern England, also to decrease deer numbers,

    Like you, I think it improbable. The first person attacked will see the blame laid squarely at the politician who gave the green light.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,791
    kle4 said:

    antifrank said:

    kle4 said:

    Ultimately it hardly matters who brought down the plane, sadly. The Russians cannot be punished with more than sanctions presumably, if it was them, and it's not as though either side and it's supporters will accept any conclusion that apportions blame to their side, so would the political situation even change at all?

    Much more could be done with sanctions.

    You will note that Russia is making strenuous diplomatic efforts to get existing sanctions lifted (without actually in substance altering the behaviour complained of). We should do the reverse and ratchet them up a couple of notches. Wars don't have to be fought with soldiers. We have little green men of our own and they sit in the City and Canary Wharf.
    Much can be done with sanctions but it doesn't feel like there's that much of an appetite to take them further, it seemed hard enough to get them as far as they were. Short of a photo of Putin firing a missle personally, it feels like only token action would ever be taken.
    I agree that the appetite for action is sickeningly low. Our failure to confront an aggressive militarist imperialist regime will be a stain on our age.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited October 2015
    Burnham made the usual tit of himself at the Immigration debate yesterday..Someone has told him that if he shouts very loud and s l o w s his speech d o w n then no none will spot the inane blather he comes out with.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Very limited clips and I will admit being a complete wimp in not watching but wow, is Saunders really that bad? Is his job simply to make Hilary look younger and coherent? Does he not own a comb?

    It seems to me that any bet against Hilary is a bet that her health will fail (very unlikely) or she gets indicted (even more unlikely). Laying at 1/3 for the democratic nomination looks very brave.

    Can the republicans find a credible candidate (ie not Trump) to oppose her? They seem to be struggling so far.

    DavidL said:

    Very limited clips and I will admit being a complete wimp in not watching but wow, is Saunders really that bad? Is his job simply to make Hilary look younger and coherent? Does he not own a comb?

    It seems to me that any bet against Hilary is a bet that her health will fail (very unlikely) or she gets indicted (even more unlikely). Laying at 1/3 for the democratic nomination looks very brave.

    Can the republicans find a credible candidate (ie not Trump) to oppose her? They seem to be struggling so far.

    I think the answer is Rubio, but I'm not sure the Republicans agree.
    Being pro immigration is Rubio and Jeb's problem. Trump and Cruz are anti. Interestingly Speedy seemed to be watching a different debate from OGH and most punters in his comments on the last thread saying Hillary bombed
    But Rubio has completely u-turned on immigration. It's reminiscent of Romney's u-turn on healthcare. Their original support means the party base is not at all happy with them, and it would sink them against a good consistently conservative candidate, but as they've given way on the issue the base will grudgingly accept them over a loon that will lose.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    Mr. 63, some have called for wolves to be reintroduced to southern England, also to decrease deer numbers,

    Like you, I think it improbable. The first person attacked will see the blame laid squarely at the politician who gave the green light.

    Exactly my point, we are far too squeamish to accept that some animals kill others. Farmers and country folk will think it sensible but they're a minority.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,775

    DavidL said:

    Very limited clips and I will admit being a complete wimp in not watching but wow, is Saunders really that bad? Is his job simply to make Hilary look younger and coherent? Does he not own a comb?

    It seems to me that any bet against Hilary is a bet that her health will fail (very unlikely) or she gets indicted (even more unlikely). Laying at 1/3 for the democratic nomination looks very brave.

    Can the republicans find a credible candidate (ie not Trump) to oppose her? They seem to be struggling so far.

    DavidL said:

    Very limited clips and I will admit being a complete wimp in not watching but wow, is Saunders really that bad? Is his job simply to make Hilary look younger and coherent? Does he not own a comb?

    It seems to me that any bet against Hilary is a bet that her health will fail (very unlikely) or she gets indicted (even more unlikely). Laying at 1/3 for the democratic nomination looks very brave.

    Can the republicans find a credible candidate (ie not Trump) to oppose her? They seem to be struggling so far.

    I think the answer is Rubio, but I'm not sure the Republicans agree.
    The answer is Trump, possibly the first PotUS to be elected entirely by voters who neither own nor feel the lack of passports.

    There aren't enough of them. Each time in recent elections the GOP have hit the same problem. Jeb and the establishment know they need to reach out to other sections of american society, but the party membership won't let them. Hang on a minute...this is beginning to sound similar to somewhere else I know.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,108
    Mr. 63, jein. One would guess pastoral farmers will be worried about their livestock. Arable farmers might be keener, as it'd reduce deer numbers.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Wolves have been known to be random in their choice of food..anything that moves can be seen as a source..
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 7,366

    Oh dear dear dear. It seems some people here are more than a little upset that the report does not state (as would have been quite within its remit without apportioning blame) that the missile was fired from rebel held territory. Keep flapping guys, I'm sure no-one will notice...

    Why was it in their remit to say where the missile was fired from? That issue was irrelevant to the investigation as set out, at least as far as I see it. Where it was fired from, and who fired it, is irrelevant to what caused the plane to break up, or recommendations as to how such an incident could be avoided in the future.

    The type of missile and warhead was within the remit, as they were trying to explain what caused the plane to break up, not who fired it.

    This is common with all sorts of accident reports: the main requirement is to find out what happened, and leave any prosecutions for who did it (whether by incompetence or malice) to the relevant authorities.

    We'll see what happens when the Dutch criminal investigation report is released.
    They did say where it was fired from, that's the point. A 320 square km area in Eastern Ukraine. Had there been a smaller and more specific potential launch area they could and would have said so.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,108
    Scotland lose a couple of players to temporary bans for foul play:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/34510438

    Hard to see them beating Australia, alas.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 7,366
    antifrank said:

    kle4 said:

    antifrank said:

    kle4 said:

    Ultimately it hardly matters who brought down the plane, sadly. The Russians cannot be punished with more than sanctions presumably, if it was them, and it's not as though either side and it's supporters will accept any conclusion that apportions blame to their side, so would the political situation even change at all?

    Much more could be done with sanctions.

    You will note that Russia is making strenuous diplomatic efforts to get existing sanctions lifted (without actually in substance altering the behaviour complained of). We should do the reverse and ratchet them up a couple of notches. Wars don't have to be fought with soldiers. We have little green men of our own and they sit in the City and Canary Wharf.
    Much can be done with sanctions but it doesn't feel like there's that much of an appetite to take them further, it seemed hard enough to get them as far as they were. Short of a photo of Putin firing a missle personally, it feels like only token action would ever be taken.
    I agree that the appetite for action is sickeningly low. Our failure to confront an aggressive militarist imperialist regime will be a stain on our age.
    I completely agree. It's just that the regime isn't Russia.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,311
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Very limited clips and I will admit being a complete wimp in not watching but wow, is Saunders really that bad? Is his job simply to make Hilary look younger and coherent? Does he not own a comb?

    It seems to me that any bet against Hilary is a bet that her health will fail (very unlikely) or she gets indicted (even more unlikely). Laying at 1/3 for the democratic nomination looks very brave.

    Can the republicans find a credible candidate (ie not Trump) to oppose her? They seem to be struggling so far.

    DavidL said:

    Very limited clips and I will admit being a complete wimp in not watching but wow, is Saunders really that bad? Is his job simply to make Hilary look younger and coherent? Does he not own a comb?

    It seems to me that any bet against Hilary is a bet that her health will fail (very unlikely) or she gets indicted (even more unlikely). Laying at 1/3 for the democratic nomination looks very brave.

    Can the republicans find a credible candidate (ie not Trump) to oppose her? They seem to be struggling so far.

    I think the answer is Rubio, but I'm not sure the Republicans agree.
    Being pro immigration is Rubio and Jeb's problem. Trump and Cruz are anti. Interestingly Speedy seemed to be watching a different debate from OGH and most punters in his comments on the last thread saying Hillary bombed
    That's interesting. I though Rubio was quite conservative.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 44,257

    Mr. 63, some have called for wolves to be reintroduced to southern England, also to decrease deer numbers,

    Like you, I think it improbable. The first person attacked will see the blame laid squarely at the politician who gave the green light.

    Exactly my point, we are far too squeamish to accept that some animals kill others. Farmers and country folk will think it sensible but they're a minority.
    I think it is a possibility for the sparse lands of the Scottish Highlands, but sheep farm density in the southwest (South East is a non starter for pop density reasons) is too high - even if there are too many deer about.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    LG83.. How TF do you know..
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,851
    edited October 2015
    malcolmg said:

    MattW said:

    chestnut said:

    fitalass said:

    Interesting article in the Herald Scotland - SNP being lured into most blatant fiscal trap in 300 years

    As The Herald reported yesterday, the think tank IPPR calculates that the average family in Scotland will be £200 worse off
    That's a sizeable difference from the £1000+ a year being bandied around by all and sundry in the UK wide press.
    I'm afraid I'm reduced to the point that when I read this sort of thing from Nats:

    >This must be the most transparent fiscal trap since the Malt Tax in 1713.

    I want to have it read in his Carry On voice by an exhumed Kenneth Williams.
    You absolute turnip , it was not a Nationalist that wrote it.

    Turnip yourself, Malc.

    I didn't say it was written by a Nationalist. There's that little phrase "this sort of thing".

    Merely an accurate caricature.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    There is really only one safe way to cull deer and that is with a gun... in the hands of a marksman.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,937

    DavidL said:

    Very limited clips and I will admit being a complete wimp in not watching but wow, is Saunders really that bad? Is his job simply to make Hilary look younger and coherent? Does he not own a comb?

    It seems to me that any bet against Hilary is a bet that her health will fail (very unlikely) or she gets indicted (even more unlikely). Laying at 1/3 for the democratic nomination looks very brave.

    Can the republicans find a credible candidate (ie not Trump) to oppose her? They seem to be struggling so far.

    DavidL said:

    Very limited clips and I will admit being a complete wimp in not watching but wow, is Saunders really that bad? Is his job simply to make Hilary look younger and coherent? Does he not own a comb?

    It seems to me that any bet against Hilary is a bet that her health will fail (very unlikely) or she gets indicted (even more unlikely). Laying at 1/3 for the democratic nomination looks very brave.

    Can the republicans find a credible candidate (ie not Trump) to oppose her? They seem to be struggling so far.

    I think the answer is Rubio, but I'm not sure the Republicans agree.
    The answer is Trump, possibly the first PotUS to be elected entirely by voters who neither own nor feel the lack of passports.

    There aren't enough of them. Each time in recent elections the GOP have hit the same problem. Jeb and the establishment know they need to reach out to other sections of american society, but the party membership won't let them. Hang on a minute...this is beginning to sound similar to somewhere else I know.
    The GOP has always gone establishment since as far back as 1964, though it frequently flirts with doing otherwise before running home to the electorate's comfort zone.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Just watched the clips of the Democrat debate from CNN. Clinton was by far the best performer. Only O'Malley kept up with her. Sanders was poor. Webb and Chafee were completely awful.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    antifrank said:

    kle4 said:

    antifrank said:

    kle4 said:

    Ultimately it hardly matters who brought down the plane, sadly. The Russians cannot be punished with more than sanctions presumably, if it was them, and it's not as though either side and it's supporters will accept any conclusion that apportions blame to their side, so would the political situation even change at all?

    Much more could be done with sanctions.

    You will note that Russia is making strenuous diplomatic efforts to get existing sanctions lifted (without actually in substance altering the behaviour complained of). We should do the reverse and ratchet them up a couple of notches. Wars don't have to be fought with soldiers. We have little green men of our own and they sit in the City and Canary Wharf.
    Much can be done with sanctions but it doesn't feel like there's that much of an appetite to take them further, it seemed hard enough to get them as far as they were. Short of a photo of Putin firing a missle personally, it feels like only token action would ever be taken.
    I agree that the appetite for action is sickeningly low. Our failure to confront an aggressive militarist imperialist regime will be a stain on our age.
    I completely agree. It's just that the regime isn't Russia.
    Only one of the major powers has recently annexed land from its neighbour.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,461
    JEO said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Very limited clips and I will admit being a complete wimp in not watching but wow, is Saunders really that bad? Is his job simply to make Hilary look younger and coherent? Does he not own a comb?

    It seems to me that any bet against Hilary is a bet that her health will fail (very unlikely) or she gets indicted (even more unlikely). Laying at 1/3 for the democratic nomination looks very brave.

    Can the republicans find a credible candidate (ie not Trump) to oppose her? They seem to be struggling so far.

    DavidL said:

    Very limited clips and I will admit being a complete wimp in not watching but wow, is Saunders really that bad? Is his job simply to make Hilary look younger and coherent? Does he not own a comb?

    It seems to me that any bet against Hilary is a bet that her health will fail (very unlikely) or she gets indicted (even more unlikely). Laying at 1/3 for the democratic nomination looks very brave.

    Can the republicans find a credible candidate (ie not Trump) to oppose her? They seem to be struggling so far.

    I think the answer is Rubio, but I'm not sure the Republicans agree.
    Being pro immigration is Rubio and Jeb's problem. Trump and Cruz are anti. Interestingly Speedy seemed to be watching a different debate from OGH and most punters in his comments on the last thread saying Hillary bombed
    But Rubio has completely u-turned on immigration. It's reminiscent of Romney's u-turn on healthcare. Their original support means the party base is not at all happy with them, and it would sink them against a good consistently conservative candidate, but as they've given way on the issue the base will grudgingly accept them over a loon that will lose.
    No Trump polls well ahead of Rubio with the base
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,922

    Oh dear dear dear. It seems some people here are more than a little upset that the report does not state (as would have been quite within its remit without apportioning blame) that the missile was fired from rebel held territory. Keep flapping guys, I'm sure no-one will notice...

    Why was it in their remit to say where the missile was fired from? That issue was irrelevant to the investigation as set out, at least as far as I see it. Where it was fired from, and who fired it, is irrelevant to what caused the plane to break up, or recommendations as to how such an incident could be avoided in the future.

    The type of missile and warhead was within the remit, as they were trying to explain what caused the plane to break up, not who fired it.

    This is common with all sorts of accident reports: the main requirement is to find out what happened, and leave any prosecutions for who did it (whether by incompetence or malice) to the relevant authorities.

    We'll see what happens when the Dutch criminal investigation report is released.
    They did say where it was fired from, that's the point. A 320 square km area in Eastern Ukraine. Had there been a smaller and more specific potential launch area they could and would have said so.
    No, because that would have been irrelevant and just tied them up further with arguments.

    Still, at least the air-to-air missile 'theory' has been thoroughly debunked.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,775

    DavidL said:

    Very limited clips and I will admit being a complete wimp in not watching but wow, is Saunders really that bad? Is his job simply to make Hilary look younger and coherent? Does he not own a comb?

    It seems to me that any bet against Hilary is a bet that her health will fail (very unlikely) or she gets indicted (even more unlikely). Laying at 1/3 for the democratic nomination looks very brave.

    Can the republicans find a credible candidate (ie not Trump) to oppose her? They seem to be struggling so far.

    DavidL said:

    Very limited clips and I will admit being a complete wimp in not watching but wow, is Saunders really that bad? Is his job simply to make Hilary look younger and coherent? Does he not own a comb?

    It seems to me that any bet against Hilary is a bet that her health will fail (very unlikely) or she gets indicted (even more unlikely). Laying at 1/3 for the democratic nomination looks very brave.

    Can the republicans find a credible candidate (ie not Trump) to oppose her? They seem to be struggling so far.

    I think the answer is Rubio, but I'm not sure the Republicans agree.
    The answer is Trump, possibly the first PotUS to be elected entirely by voters who neither own nor feel the lack of passports.

    There aren't enough of them. Each time in recent elections the GOP have hit the same problem. Jeb and the establishment know they need to reach out to other sections of american society, but the party membership won't let them. Hang on a minute...this is beginning to sound similar to somewhere else I know.
    The GOP has always gone establishment since as far back as 1964, though it frequently flirts with doing otherwise before running home to the electorate's comfort zone.
    Well, true with the actual candidate they end up with, Romney, Bush. But along the way they are forced to bend into all sorts of positions that don't command wider support. They are doomed with the wider electorate before lift-off IMHO.
Sign In or Register to comment.