Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The power and politics of pardon

SystemSystem Posts: 6,389
edited September 9 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The power and politics of pardon

Under the US constitution, an American president has a virtually untrammelled power to pardon, or commute the sentence of, anyone convicted of a Federal offence (but not offences under State law). It is a power completely personal to the president, who can exercise it for any reason, or for no good reason, and it has been used surprisingly often: 1,927 times by Barack Obama, for example. Although there is a government department, the Office of the Pardon Attorney, through which applications for presidential clemency are usually routed, there is no obligation on the president to follow that process.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Challenge accepted Richard, challenge accepted.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 69,779
    edited September 9
    Oh was that a primus inter pares?

    *Innocent face*
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,399
    edited September 9
    That was an Ace pun, Richard.

    Edit - but there was no need to club us over the head with it. Have a heart.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,770
    ydoethur said:

    That was an Ace pun, Richard.

    Edit - but there was no need to club us over the head with it. Have a heart.

    So our diamond geezer is no longer spending time with his timetables and back to call a spade a spade.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,399
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    That was an Ace pun, Richard.

    Edit - but there was no need to club us over the head with it. Have a heart.

    So our diamond geezer is no longer spending time with his timetables and back to call a spade a spade.
    Four king hell, David, am I not allowed a break from timetabling when I see the opportunity for an awesome pun?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 11,165
    Pretty convincing article, thanks Richard. A caveat might be that sufficiently shameless use of pardons before 2020 might reinforce GOP resolve not to renominate him. In that situation, I could well see him running as an independent - not a possibility I've seen discussed before, but entirely in keeping with his personality. I think he'd lose, but the official GOP candidate might be pushed into third place.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,770
    I recall in the 60s it became common practice in the South to charge people in the Federal Courts for racially motivated crimes because there was an apprehension that juries in the State Courts would acquit. Might we just see the reverse coming into play for members of Trump's administration?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,770
    England are once again making a right mess of bowling at this tail. Once again a significant potential lead is being whittled away. Will India get the lead this time? Surely not.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,399

    Pretty convincing article, thanks Richard. A caveat might be that sufficiently shameless use of pardons before 2020 might reinforce GOP resolve not to renominate him. In that situation, I could well see him running as an independent - not a possibility I've seen discussed before, but entirely in keeping with his personality. I think he'd lose, but the official GOP candidate might be pushed into third place.

    Happened in 1912. But then the candidate was Theodore Roosevelt, an unstable egomaniac with a thin skin and a penchant for messing up foreign aff...ah.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,399
    DavidL said:

    England are once again making a right mess of bowling at this tail. Once again a significant potential lead is being whittled away. Will India get the lead this time? Surely not.

    I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that, whatever else they need, the first priority for England is a new captain. It sounds as though Anderson is having to set the field otherwise it would be spread wider than a prostitute's legs.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,770
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    That was an Ace pun, Richard.

    Edit - but there was no need to club us over the head with it. Have a heart.

    So our diamond geezer is no longer spending time with his timetables and back to call a spade a spade.
    Four king hell, David, am I not allowed a break from timetabling when I see the opportunity for an awesome pun?
    I have no desire to queen on how you jack about @ydoethur, but I fear this is only a temporary bridge to sanity and it will not be long before you are whist away for some solo once more.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,399
    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    ydoethur said:

    That was an Ace pun, Richard.

    Edit - but there was no need to club us over the head with it. Have a heart.

    So our diamond geezer is no longer spending time with his timetables and back to call a spade a spade.
    Four king hell, David, am I not allowed a break from timetabling when I see the opportunity for an awesome pun?
    I have no desire to queen on how you jack about @ydoethur, but I fear this is only a temporary bridge to sanity and it will not be long before you are whist away for some solo once more.
    Those were knavish puns, David, and they have left my efforts at sixes and sevens. Any more puns would just seem rummy.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 5,619
    DavidL said:

    I recall in the 60s it became common practice in the South to charge people in the Federal Courts for racially motivated crimes because there was an apprehension that juries in the State Courts would acquit. Might we just see the reverse coming into play for members of Trump's administration?

    I'm pretty sure one of the Trump-related charges has already been brought in New York State as a State charge for this reason, but I forget the details.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,770
    I think in fairness both parties and indeed the factions within them have their fair share of tits.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,399
    I would never have thought it of Cara Delevinge. What attracted her to him?
  • "* Beat that pun, TSE!"

    Best. Footnote. Ever.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,399
    DavidL said:

    I think in fairness both parties and indeed the factions within them have their fair share of tits.
    And at the moment almost all politicians are assailed by knockers.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,808
    Blast! We might have avoided an outbreak of paronomasia with the distraction of cricket, but no. Eheu.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,770
    Why the hell is Broad getting another over at the number 11 after the last time he wasted it?
    I fear you are right @ydoethur. We need a new captain.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,399
    edited September 9
    DavidL said:

    Why the hell is Broad getting another over at the number 11 after the last time he wasted it?
    I fear you are right @ydoethur. We need a new captain.

    Yorkshire gave Root a few games as captain in the absence of Andrew Gale. Locals dubbed him 'Craptain' because he was so incompetent.
  • ydoethur said:

    Pretty convincing article, thanks Richard. A caveat might be that sufficiently shameless use of pardons before 2020 might reinforce GOP resolve not to renominate him. In that situation, I could well see him running as an independent - not a possibility I've seen discussed before, but entirely in keeping with his personality. I think he'd lose, but the official GOP candidate might be pushed into third place.

    Happened in 1912. But then the candidate was Theodore Roosevelt, an unstable egomaniac with a thin skin and a penchant for messing up foreign aff...ah.
    Indeed Teddy is the only third party candidate to ever finish in the top 2.
  • 40 run first innings lead. Would have taken that at the start of yesterday's play.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203
    edited September 9

    DavidL said:

    I recall in the 60s it became common practice in the South to charge people in the Federal Courts for racially motivated crimes because there was an apprehension that juries in the State Courts would acquit. Might we just see the reverse coming into play for members of Trump's administration?

    I'm pretty sure one of the Trump-related charges has already been brought in New York State as a State charge for this reason, but I forget the details.
    Manafort.
    Who actually has pending criminal charges in at least four states (it would be three, but his jury obligingly failed to convict on a few of the Federal charges).
    A presidential pardon will do him no good at all - particularly as his prior conviction can still be brought up in evidence in any state proceedings irrespective of any pardon.

    I’m pretty sure NY State (at the very least) has a parallel investigation into Trump’s misdeeds ongoing.

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,251
    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    viewcode said:

    Alistair said:

    The move to making tenancies 3 year minimums is, in my view, a great idea.

    There are practical problems to this. Many properties that are rented out are leasehold flats. The lease will have a restriction to the length of time it can be continually rented: mine is two years. An AST of six months with an option to renew fits this nicely and enables me to rent out my flat if I get a job elsewhere in the country. But three-year-tenancies would kill that idea stone dead.

    The leasehold system should, of course, be done away with. Its existence is a scandal.
    For houses yes, not for flats as the vast majority of flats sold are leasehold and the freehold is held by the owner of the apartment building
    In Scotland flats are (for all intents and purposes) sold with a shared freehold.
    In which case everybody is responsible not just for paying for but carrying out maintenance for the whole apartment block
    Better than being bled dry by outrageous ground rents that ultimately make your property unsellable.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Why the hell is Broad getting another over at the number 11 after the last time he wasted it?
    I fear you are right @ydoethur. We need a new captain.

    Yorkshire gave Root a few games as captain in the absence of Andrew Gale. Locals dubbed him 'Craptain' because he was so incompetent.
    Do you think Rashid was underbowled against the tail ?
    He is pretty good at mopping up 9/10/11.


  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203

    40 run first innings lead. Would have taken that at the start of yesterday's play.

    And sets up the match quite nicely. Competitive, but not too competitive.
    :smile:
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,869
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Why the hell is Broad getting another over at the number 11 after the last time he wasted it?
    I fear you are right @ydoethur. We need a new captain.

    Yorkshire gave Root a few games as captain in the absence of Andrew Gale. Locals dubbed him 'Craptain' because he was so incompetent.
    England's bowlers are all very strong cricketers. Amazing how well we're doing with a poor top order at the moment
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,978
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Just under four hours until the exit poll from Sweden.
  • Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Why the hell is Broad getting another over at the number 11 after the last time he wasted it?
    I fear you are right @ydoethur. We need a new captain.

    Yorkshire gave Root a few games as captain in the absence of Andrew Gale. Locals dubbed him 'Craptain' because he was so incompetent.
    England's bowlers are all very strong cricketers. Amazing how well we're doing with a poor top order at the moment
    I think its safe to say the runs scored by our tail have been the difference between the two sides this series. Had our tail collapsed like it did in the 90s we would have been heavily defeated.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 19,702
    edited September 9
    Nigelb said:


    Manafort.
    Who actually has pending criminal charges in at least four states (it would be three, but his jury obligingly failed to convict on a few of the Federal charges).
    A presidential pardon will do him no good at all - particularly as his prior conviction can still be brought up in evidence in any state proceedings irrespective of any pardon.

    I’m pretty sure NY State (at the very least) has a parallel investigation into Trump’s misdeeds ongoing.

    The interaction between federal and state law as regards presidential power of pardon is a bit of an unknown. If state law were used in an attempt to circumvent a presidential pardon, I imagine that would be challenged as unconstitutional.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,111
    If Trump wanted to "Lock her up", he should have just brought her into his cabinet.
  • I suppose the difference between the Roger Clinton and Susan McDougal pardons is that they were granted with hours left of the Clinton Presidency.

    Trump will have to live with his pardons for potentially several years of his Presidency.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,752

    Challenge accepted Richard, challenge accepted.

    I guess Richard thinks Trump won’t be mullered by the current investigation?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,752
    I apologise for linking to Guido but thought these were interesting quotes from Barnier I have seen discussed on here

    https://order-order.com/2018/09/07/barnier-open-discussing-backstops/
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203

    Nigelb said:


    Manafort.
    Who actually has pending criminal charges in at least four states (it would be three, but his jury obligingly failed to convict on a few of the Federal charges).
    A presidential pardon will do him no good at all - particularly as his prior conviction can still be brought up in evidence in any state proceedings irrespective of any pardon.

    I’m pretty sure NY State (at the very least) has a parallel investigation into Trump’s misdeeds ongoing.

    The interaction between federal and state law as regards presidential power of pardon is a bit of an unknown. If state law were used in an attempt to circumvent a presidential pardon, I imagine that would be challenged as unconstitutional.
    I seriously doubt it, especially in the context of a president attempting to pardon himself and/or his associates in crime....

    Of course a SC with Kavanaugh on the bench might be a different matter, but that raises a whole other set of questions.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 22,515
    Charles said:

    Challenge accepted Richard, challenge accepted.

    I guess Richard thinks Trump won’t be mullered by the current investigation?
    Has anyone tried a Tangerine Muller Corner?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,869
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:


    Manafort.
    Who actually has pending criminal charges in at least four states (it would be three, but his jury obligingly failed to convict on a few of the Federal charges).
    A presidential pardon will do him no good at all - particularly as his prior conviction can still be brought up in evidence in any state proceedings irrespective of any pardon.

    I’m pretty sure NY State (at the very least) has a parallel investigation into Trump’s misdeeds ongoing.

    The interaction between federal and state law as regards presidential power of pardon is a bit of an unknown. If state law were used in an attempt to circumvent a presidential pardon, I imagine that would be challenged as unconstitutional.
    I seriously doubt it, especially in the context of a president attempting to pardon himself and/or his associates in crime....

    Of course a SC with Kavanaugh on the bench might be a different matter, but that raises a whole other set of questions.
    I think a SC with Kavanagh QC would work better
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:


    Manafort.
    Who actually has pending criminal charges in at least four states (it would be three, but his jury obligingly failed to convict on a few of the Federal charges).
    A presidential pardon will do him no good at all - particularly as his prior conviction can still be brought up in evidence in any state proceedings irrespective of any pardon.

    I’m pretty sure NY State (at the very least) has a parallel investigation into Trump’s misdeeds ongoing.

    The interaction between federal and state law as regards presidential power of pardon is a bit of an unknown. If state law were used in an attempt to circumvent a presidential pardon, I imagine that would be challenged as unconstitutional.
    I seriously doubt it, especially in the context of a president attempting to pardon himself and/or his associates in crime....

    Of course a SC with Kavanaugh on the bench might be a different matter, but that raises a whole other set of questions.
    I think a SC with Kavanagh QC would work better
    In what respect ?

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,752

    Charles said:

    Challenge accepted Richard, challenge accepted.

    I guess Richard thinks Trump won’t be mullered by the current investigation?
    Has anyone tried a Tangerine Muller Corner?
    Tangerine Trump cornered by Muller?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,869
    Off topic, the lack of support for Vamos on twitter is disappointing but sadly not unexpected. Sue Barker calling for him to be sanctioned for doing his job is a particular low point for the bbc
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,978
    Mr. Pulpstar, I found the sexism argument a little odd, given the beneficiary of his decision was also a woman.

    The clip I saw was of Serena at her press conference, admitting she called him a thief, then being surprised she was penalised.

    Maybe directly insulting the umpire is not a smart thing.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,659
    Something of a wildcard for the Sweden results tonight. My cousin who lives there explained to me how the voting system works and its intended purpose of shaming people into only voting for "acceptable" parties. The way voting happens there is that people take voting sheets from a common tray and them post them into a ballot box, each party running has it's own sheet in a separate container which one must pick the ballot paper up from. He said the system has been designed to put pressure onto people thinking of voting against the consensus and expects that SD will underperform the online polling because of it.

    He was very surprised that it wasn't just an X in a box which is truly secret.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,478
    MaxPB said:

    Something of a wildcard for the Sweden results tonight. My cousin who lives there explained to me how the voting system works and its intended purpose of shaming people into only voting for "acceptable" parties. The way voting happens there is that people take voting sheets from a common tray and them post them into a ballot box, each party running has it's own sheet in a separate container which one must pick the ballot paper up from. He said the system has been designed to put pressure onto people thinking of voting against the consensus and expects that SD will underperform the online polling because of it.

    He was very surprised that it wasn't just an X in a box which is truly secret.

    That doesn't sound like a fair voting system to me.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,978
    Mr. Max, cheers for that snippet of info. I agree with Mr. JS.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,659
    AndyJS said:

    MaxPB said:

    Something of a wildcard for the Sweden results tonight. My cousin who lives there explained to me how the voting system works and its intended purpose of shaming people into only voting for "acceptable" parties. The way voting happens there is that people take voting sheets from a common tray and them post them into a ballot box, each party running has it's own sheet in a separate container which one must pick the ballot paper up from. He said the system has been designed to put pressure onto people thinking of voting against the consensus and expects that SD will underperform the online polling because of it.

    He was very surprised that it wasn't just an X in a box which is truly secret.

    That doesn't sound like a fair voting system to me.
    Indeed, he didn't think so either when he was picking up his preferred ballot papers while all the staff inside the polling station (local people who he has met previously) watched him. Mental way of voting IMO.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,478
    Keaton Jennings fouls up again.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,291
    MaxPB said:

    Something of a wildcard for the Sweden results tonight. My cousin who lives there explained to me how the voting system works and its intended purpose of shaming people into only voting for "acceptable" parties. The way voting happens there is that people take voting sheets from a common tray and them post them into a ballot box, each party running has it's own sheet in a separate container which one must pick the ballot paper up from. He said the system has been designed to put pressure onto people thinking of voting against the consensus and expects that SD will underperform the online polling because of it.

    He was very surprised that it wasn't just an X in a box which is truly secret.

    http://pure.au.dk/portal/files/128529565/Brisbane_paper_on_secret_voting_26062018.pdf

    I'm quite surprised, as it makes it more difficult to have a truly secret ballot. They also mention printing 685 million ballot cards... which seems excessive.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,770
    AndyJS said:

    Keaton Jennings fouls up again.

    England really need to try 2 new openers. With Cook retiring him going on tour should have been a no brainer but he is not close to being good enough.
  • AndyJS said:

    Keaton Jennings fouls up again.

    That Keaton Jennings dismissal reminded me of Michael Clarke at Old Trafford in 2005.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,752

    Mr. Pulpstar, I found the sexism argument a little odd, given the beneficiary of his decision was also a woman.

    The clip I saw was of Serena at her press conference, admitting she called him a thief, then being surprised she was penalised.

    Maybe directly insulting the umpire is not a smart thing.

    It’s very sexist of her. She’s never called a female umpire a liar and a thief
  • mattmatt Posts: 2,042
    Pulpstar said:

    Off topic, the lack of support for Vamos on twitter is disappointing but sadly not unexpected. Sue Barker calling for him to be sanctioned for doing his job is a particular low point for the bbc

    The defences, from what I’ve heard are:

    A. Although her coach was coaching, there was no way she could see it; and/or

    B. It’s a triumph for womens’ liberation.

    Neither seem particularly compelling.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203

    AndyJS said:

    Keaton Jennings fouls up again.

    That Keaton Jennings dismissal reminded me of Michael Clarke at Old Trafford in 2005.
    Doesn’t seem to be able to catch, either.
    That one off Rashid should have been taken.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,478
    When India have just stupidly used up all their reviews, to play no shot and fail to get your pads in the way is a bit silly because there's always a chance you might get away with it if the umpire makes a howler.
  • Nigelb said:

    AndyJS said:

    Keaton Jennings fouls up again.

    That Keaton Jennings dismissal reminded me of Michael Clarke at Old Trafford in 2005.
    Doesn’t seem to be able to catch, either.
    That one off Rashid should have been taken.
    We need two openers for this winter.

    Might as well give Jason Roy a chance.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,659
    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Something of a wildcard for the Sweden results tonight. My cousin who lives there explained to me how the voting system works and its intended purpose of shaming people into only voting for "acceptable" parties. The way voting happens there is that people take voting sheets from a common tray and them post them into a ballot box, each party running has it's own sheet in a separate container which one must pick the ballot paper up from. He said the system has been designed to put pressure onto people thinking of voting against the consensus and expects that SD will underperform the online polling because of it.

    He was very surprised that it wasn't just an X in a box which is truly secret.

    http://pure.au.dk/portal/files/128529565/Brisbane_paper_on_secret_voting_26062018.pdf

    I'm quite surprised, as it makes it more difficult to have a truly secret ballot. They also mention printing 685 million ballot cards... which seems excessive.
    Well from what my cousin was saying it's intended purpose is to pressure people into not voting for anti-consensus parties like SD and the communists etc...

    It is a system designed to make people's votes less secret!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 22,515
    For aficionados of pineapple pizzas:
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,978
    Mr. Eagles, Mr. Glenn's post just reminded me.

    Did you have your pineapple pizza yet?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203

    Nigelb said:

    AndyJS said:

    Keaton Jennings fouls up again.

    That Keaton Jennings dismissal reminded me of Michael Clarke at Old Trafford in 2005.
    Doesn’t seem to be able to catch, either.
    That one off Rashid should have been taken.
    We need two openers for this winter.

    Might as well give Jason Roy a chance.
    And... ?

  • Mr. Eagles, Mr. Glenn's post just reminded me.

    Did you have your pineapple pizza yet?

    I did, well a slice and a bit.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 11,165
    Scott_P said:
    Hmm. A Labour MP whose main purpose was achieving Conservative victory? That's thre sort of behaviour that those of us opposed to mandatory reselection like to dismiss as wild fantasy.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,418
    Serena Williams is a nasty piece of work:

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203
    Umpire Dharmasena seems pretty clued up in this match, too.
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    AndyJS said:

    Keaton Jennings fouls up again.

    That Keaton Jennings dismissal reminded me of Michael Clarke at Old Trafford in 2005.
    Doesn’t seem to be able to catch, either.
    That one off Rashid should have been taken.
    We need two openers for this winter.

    Might as well give Jason Roy a chance.
    And... ?

    See if it works, we know Jennings doesn't.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,978
    Mr. 86, I'd forgotten about that.

    Does seem to have a temper.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    AndyJS said:

    Keaton Jennings fouls up again.

    That Keaton Jennings dismissal reminded me of Michael Clarke at Old Trafford in 2005.
    Doesn’t seem to be able to catch, either.
    That one off Rashid should have been taken.
    We need two openers for this winter.

    Might as well give Jason Roy a chance.
    And... ?

    See if it works, we know Jennings doesn't.
    I was just wondering whom you might suggest for the other one.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 47,183
    MaxPB said:

    Something of a wildcard for the Sweden results tonight. My cousin who lives there explained to me how the voting system works and its intended purpose of shaming people into only voting for "acceptable" parties. The way voting happens there is that people take voting sheets from a common tray and them post them into a ballot box, each party running has it's own sheet in a separate container which one must pick the ballot paper up from. He said the system has been designed to put pressure onto people thinking of voting against the consensus and expects that SD will underperform the online polling because of it.

    He was very surprised that it wasn't just an X in a box which is truly secret.

    Surely the same applied in 2014 when the Swedish Democrats pretty much matched or slightly outperformed most of the final polls?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Swedish_general_election,_2014
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    AndyJS said:

    Keaton Jennings fouls up again.

    That Keaton Jennings dismissal reminded me of Michael Clarke at Old Trafford in 2005.
    Doesn’t seem to be able to catch, either.
    That one off Rashid should have been taken.
    We need two openers for this winter.

    Might as well give Jason Roy a chance.
    And... ?

    See if it works, we know Jennings doesn't.
    I was just wondering whom you might suggest for the other one.
    Rory Burns
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 47,183

    Pretty convincing article, thanks Richard. A caveat might be that sufficiently shameless use of pardons before 2020 might reinforce GOP resolve not to renominate him. In that situation, I could well see him running as an independent - not a possibility I've seen discussed before, but entirely in keeping with his personality. I think he'd lose, but the official GOP candidate might be pushed into third place.

    How can the GOP resolve not to nominate him? As long as he gets enough GOP primary voters voting for him he will be nominee again
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 47,183
    ydoethur said:

    Pretty convincing article, thanks Richard. A caveat might be that sufficiently shameless use of pardons before 2020 might reinforce GOP resolve not to renominate him. In that situation, I could well see him running as an independent - not a possibility I've seen discussed before, but entirely in keeping with his personality. I think he'd lose, but the official GOP candidate might be pushed into third place.

    Happened in 1912. But then the candidate was Theodore Roosevelt, an unstable egomaniac with a thin skin and a penchant for messing up foreign aff...ah.
    There were not mass primaries in 1912, the nomination was decided by party bosses at the Convention behind closed doors
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,399

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    AndyJS said:

    Keaton Jennings fouls up again.

    That Keaton Jennings dismissal reminded me of Michael Clarke at Old Trafford in 2005.
    Doesn’t seem to be able to catch, either.
    That one off Rashid should have been taken.
    We need two openers for this winter.

    Might as well give Jason Roy a chance.
    And... ?

    See if it works, we know Jennings doesn't.
    Hmmmm.

    You do know that Roy doesn't open for Surrey in first class cricket? They prefer England reject Mark Stoneman.
  • Banana on pizza? Nearly as bad as pineapple on pizza.

    I won't say a bad thing about the Swedes as they gave the world ABBA.

    Plus my first car was a Volvo.
  • ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    AndyJS said:

    Keaton Jennings fouls up again.

    That Keaton Jennings dismissal reminded me of Michael Clarke at Old Trafford in 2005.
    Doesn’t seem to be able to catch, either.
    That one off Rashid should have been taken.
    We need two openers for this winter.

    Might as well give Jason Roy a chance.
    And... ?

    See if it works, we know Jennings doesn't.
    Hmmmm.

    You do know that Roy doesn't open for Surrey in first class cricket? They prefer England reject Mark Stoneman.
    I do, I was thinking it might work in the same way plucking Jos Buttler out of the IPL into the test team has worked.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,399
    edited September 9
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pretty convincing article, thanks Richard. A caveat might be that sufficiently shameless use of pardons before 2020 might reinforce GOP resolve not to renominate him. In that situation, I could well see him running as an independent - not a possibility I've seen discussed before, but entirely in keeping with his personality. I think he'd lose, but the official GOP candidate might be pushed into third place.

    Happened in 1912. But then the candidate was Theodore Roosevelt, an unstable egomaniac with a thin skin and a penchant for messing up foreign aff...ah.
    There were not mass primaries in 1912, the nomination was decided by party bosses at the Convention behind closed doors
    I think you'll find they did have primaries in 1912, and that Roosevelt won them. The problem he had was that they were not universal. In states where the delegates were picked by the local party, Taft had a huge advantage and he used it.

    However, his campaign built the head of steam that nearly carried Roosevelt back to the White House.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203
    If Cook is out for 20, he will have scored 12345 test runs.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,399

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    AndyJS said:

    Keaton Jennings fouls up again.

    That Keaton Jennings dismissal reminded me of Michael Clarke at Old Trafford in 2005.
    Doesn’t seem to be able to catch, either.
    That one off Rashid should have been taken.
    We need two openers for this winter.

    Might as well give Jason Roy a chance.
    And... ?

    See if it works, we know Jennings doesn't.
    Hmmmm.

    You do know that Roy doesn't open for Surrey in first class cricket? They prefer England reject Mark Stoneman.
    I do, I was thinking it might work in the same way plucking Jos Buttler out of the IPL into the test team has worked.
    Again, Buttler opens in IPL, his success in Tests has come in the lower middle order.

    I don't see that as a valid comparison.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,399
    edited September 9
    Nigelb said:

    If Cook is out for 20, he will have scored 12345 test runs.

    But he needs over 50 to push his average above 45 (which would still be by far the lowest of any player with ten thousand runs, incidentally).

    Edit - to be exact he needs 50 or more.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    AndyJS said:

    Keaton Jennings fouls up again.

    That Keaton Jennings dismissal reminded me of Michael Clarke at Old Trafford in 2005.
    Doesn’t seem to be able to catch, either.
    That one off Rashid should have been taken.
    We need two openers for this winter.

    Might as well give Jason Roy a chance.
    And... ?

    See if it works, we know Jennings doesn't.
    Hmmmm.

    You do know that Roy doesn't open for Surrey in first class cricket? They prefer England reject Mark Stoneman.
    I do, I was thinking it might work in the same way plucking Jos Buttler out of the IPL into the test team has worked.
    Again, Buttler opens in IPL, his success in Tests has come in the lower middle order.

    I don't see that as a valid comparison.
    Joe Clarke worth a punt, IMO.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 47,183
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pretty convincing article, thanks Richard. A caveat might be that sufficiently shameless use of pardons before 2020 might reinforce GOP resolve not to renominate him. In that situation, I could well see him running as an independent - not a possibility I've seen discussed before, but entirely in keeping with his personality. I think he'd lose, but the official GOP candidate might be pushed into third place.

    Happened in 1912. But then the candidate was Theodore Roosevelt, an unstable egomaniac with a thin skin and a penchant for messing up foreign aff...ah.
    There were not mass primaries in 1912, the nomination was decided by party bosses at the Convention behind closed doors
    I think you'll find they did have primaries in 1912, and that Roosevelt won them. The problem he had was that they were not universal. In states where the delegates were picked by the local party, Taft had a huge advantage and he used it.

    However, his campaign built the head of steam that nearly carried Roosevelt back to the White House.
    I said not mass primaries, not no primaries at all. In 1912 only 13 states out of 48 held primaries. The vast majority of states had delegates picked by the local party and as you say they went for Taft
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,587
    edited September 9
    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Something of a wildcard for the Sweden results tonight. My cousin who lives there explained to me how the voting system works and its intended purpose of shaming people into only voting for "acceptable" parties. The way voting happens there is that people take voting sheets from a common tray and them post them into a ballot box, each party running has it's own sheet in a separate container which one must pick the ballot paper up from. He said the system has been designed to put pressure onto people thinking of voting against the consensus and expects that SD will underperform the online polling because of it.

    He was very surprised that it wasn't just an X in a box which is truly secret.

    http://pure.au.dk/portal/files/128529565/Brisbane_paper_on_secret_voting_26062018.pdf

    I'm quite surprised, as it makes it more difficult to have a truly secret ballot. They also mention printing 685 million ballot cards... which seems excessive.
    Well from what my cousin was saying it's intended purpose is to pressure people into not voting for anti-consensus parties like SD and the communists etc...

    It is a system designed to make people's votes less secret!
    Looking on the internet it appears you have an option to chose a blank ballot paper and write down the preferred party/candidate. Presumably that would be the choice for those shy supporters of the far righ..er..rejectors of cradle to grave socialism.

    'There are also different kinds of ballot papers, allowing you to vote either for a particular party (without identifying a specific candidate), to choose from a list of candidates as well as parties, or to vote using a blank ballot paper. On blank ballot papers, you can write down any party and candidate. In theory, it's possible to write anyone's name, and if that person got a large enough proportion of votes, they would be elected.'

    https://tinyurl.com/y82nnxkv
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    AndyJS said:

    Keaton Jennings fouls up again.

    That Keaton Jennings dismissal reminded me of Michael Clarke at Old Trafford in 2005.
    Doesn’t seem to be able to catch, either.
    That one off Rashid should have been taken.
    We need two openers for this winter.

    Might as well give Jason Roy a chance.
    And... ?

    See if it works, we know Jennings doesn't.
    Hmmmm.

    You do know that Roy doesn't open for Surrey in first class cricket? They prefer England reject Mark Stoneman.
    I do, I was thinking it might work in the same way plucking Jos Buttler out of the IPL into the test team has worked.
    Again, Buttler opens in IPL, his success in Tests has come in the lower middle order.

    I don't see that as a valid comparison.
    We need to do something bold.

    It has been six years since Strauss retired and we've not yet found his successor.

    What we've tried so far has failed.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,399
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pretty convincing article, thanks Richard. A caveat might be that sufficiently shameless use of pardons before 2020 might reinforce GOP resolve not to renominate him. In that situation, I could well see him running as an independent - not a possibility I've seen discussed before, but entirely in keeping with his personality. I think he'd lose, but the official GOP candidate might be pushed into third place.

    Happened in 1912. But then the candidate was Theodore Roosevelt, an unstable egomaniac with a thin skin and a penchant for messing up foreign aff...ah.
    There were not mass primaries in 1912, the nomination was decided by party bosses at the Convention behind closed doors
    I think you'll find they did have primaries in 1912, and that Roosevelt won them. The problem he had was that they were not universal. In states where the delegates were picked by the local party, Taft had a huge advantage and he used it.

    However, his campaign built the head of steam that nearly carried Roosevelt back to the White House.
    I said not mass primaries, not no primaries at all. In 1912 only 13 states out of 48 held primaries. The vast majority of states had delegates picked by the local party and as you say they went for Taft
    A primary is, by definition, a 'mass' event. What you meant I think is that they did not have many primaries, which is not the same thing.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    If Cook is out for 20, he will have scored 12345 test runs.

    But he needs over 50 to push his average above 45 (which would still be by far the lowest of any player with ten thousand runs, incidentally).

    Edit - to be exact he needs 50 or more.
    12468 would also be acceptable.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,418
    edited September 9
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    If Cook is out for 20, he will have scored 12345 test runs.

    But he needs over 50 to push his average above 45 (which would still be by far the lowest of any player with ten thousand runs, incidentally).

    Edit - to be exact he needs 50 or more.
    Most of them didn't open the batting though.

    EDIT: And Cook had to do it in England half the time.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 19,990

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    AndyJS said:

    Keaton Jennings fouls up again.

    That Keaton Jennings dismissal reminded me of Michael Clarke at Old Trafford in 2005.
    Doesn’t seem to be able to catch, either.
    That one off Rashid should have been taken.
    We need two openers for this winter.

    Might as well give Jason Roy a chance.
    And... ?

    See if it works, we know Jennings doesn't.
    Just find three random country batsmen, literally anyone is better than what we’ve seen from Cook, Jennings and Root this series. Even our own bowlers have come close to outscoring them.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,399
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    AndyJS said:

    Keaton Jennings fouls up again.

    That Keaton Jennings dismissal reminded me of Michael Clarke at Old Trafford in 2005.
    Doesn’t seem to be able to catch, either.
    That one off Rashid should have been taken.
    We need two openers for this winter.

    Might as well give Jason Roy a chance.
    And... ?

    See if it works, we know Jennings doesn't.
    Hmmmm.

    You do know that Roy doesn't open for Surrey in first class cricket? They prefer England reject Mark Stoneman.
    I do, I was thinking it might work in the same way plucking Jos Buttler out of the IPL into the test team has worked.
    Again, Buttler opens in IPL, his success in Tests has come in the lower middle order.

    I don't see that as a valid comparison.
    Joe Clarke worth a punt, IMO.
    Certainly a possibility. Other than Burns and Jennings he's had the best season of any opener in the Championship.

    The only other one who might just possibly come into the reckoning is Miles Hammond. His two centuries have come against international bowlers in Jordan, Archer and Briggs plus Finn and Harris. However, I think he's still a bit young.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,659

    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Something of a wildcard for the Sweden results tonight. My cousin who lives there explained to me how the voting system works and its intended purpose of shaming people into only voting for "acceptable" parties. The way voting happens there is that people take voting sheets from a common tray and them post them into a ballot box, each party running has it's own sheet in a separate container which one must pick the ballot paper up from. He said the system has been designed to put pressure onto people thinking of voting against the consensus and expects that SD will underperform the online polling because of it.

    He was very surprised that it wasn't just an X in a box which is truly secret.

    http://pure.au.dk/portal/files/128529565/Brisbane_paper_on_secret_voting_26062018.pdf

    I'm quite surprised, as it makes it more difficult to have a truly secret ballot. They also mention printing 685 million ballot cards... which seems excessive.
    Well from what my cousin was saying it's intended purpose is to pressure people into not voting for anti-consensus parties like SD and the communists etc...

    It is a system designed to make people's votes less secret!
    Looking on the internet it appears you have an option to chose a blank ballot paper and write down the preferred party/candidate. Presumably that would be the choice for those shy supporters of the far righ..er..rejectors of cradle to grave socialism.

    'There are also different kinds of ballot papers, allowing you to vote either for a particular party (without identifying a specific candidate), to choose from a list of candidates as well as parties, or to vote using a blank ballot paper. On blank ballot papers, you can write down any party and candidate. In theory, it's possible to write anyone's name, and if that person got a large enough proportion of votes, they would be elected.'

    https://tinyurl.com/y82nnxkv
    It's still not 100% secret, why not just have an X in a box?
  • You'll all be delighted to know that in the next few days I'll be publishing a thread comparing current political events to The Second Punic War.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    AndyJS said:

    Keaton Jennings fouls up again.

    That Keaton Jennings dismissal reminded me of Michael Clarke at Old Trafford in 2005.
    Doesn’t seem to be able to catch, either.
    That one off Rashid should have been taken.
    We need two openers for this winter.

    Might as well give Jason Roy a chance.
    And... ?

    See if it works, we know Jennings doesn't.
    Hmmmm.

    You do know that Roy doesn't open for Surrey in first class cricket? They prefer England reject Mark Stoneman.
    I do, I was thinking it might work in the same way plucking Jos Buttler out of the IPL into the test team has worked.
    Again, Buttler opens in IPL, his success in Tests has come in the lower middle order.

    I don't see that as a valid comparison.
    Joe Clarke worth a punt, IMO.
    Certainly a possibility. Other than Burns and Jennings he's had the best season of any opener in the Championship.

    The only other one who might just possibly come into the reckoning is Miles Hammond. His two centuries have come against international bowlers in Jordan, Archer and Briggs plus Finn and Harris. However, I think he's still a bit young.
    Burns and Clarke, then.
    With the world cup next year, it’s not as though the selectors are particularly bothered anyway...

  • Nigelb said:


    Burns and Clarke, then.
    With the world cup next year, it’s not as though the selectors are particularly bothered anyway...

    The ECB, in their infinite wisdom, have scheduled the Ashes next summer as well.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,587
    edited September 9
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Something of a wildcard for the Sweden results tonight. My cousin who lives there explained to me how the voting system works and its intended purpose of shaming people into only voting for "acceptable" parties. The way voting happens there is that people take voting sheets from a common tray and them post them into a ballot box, each party running has it's own sheet in a separate container which one must pick the ballot paper up from. He said the system has been designed to put pressure onto people thinking of voting against the consensus and expects that SD will underperform the online polling because of it.

    He was very surprised that it wasn't just an X in a box which is truly secret.

    http://pure.au.dk/portal/files/128529565/Brisbane_paper_on_secret_voting_26062018.pdf

    I'm quite surprised, as it makes it more difficult to have a truly secret ballot. They also mention printing 685 million ballot cards... which seems excessive.
    Well from what my cousin was saying it's intended purpose is to pressure people into not voting for anti-consensus parties like SD and the communists etc...

    It is a system designed to make people's votes less secret!
    Looking on the internet it appears you have an option to chose a blank ballot paper and write down the preferred party/candidate. Presumably that would be the choice for those shy supporters of the far righ..er..rejectors of cradle to grave socialism.

    'There are also different kinds of ballot papers, allowing you to vote either for a particular party (without identifying a specific candidate), to choose from a list of candidates as well as parties, or to vote using a blank ballot paper. On blank ballot papers, you can write down any party and candidate. In theory, it's possible to write anyone's name, and if that person got a large enough proportion of votes, they would be elected.'

    https://tinyurl.com/y82nnxkv
    It's still not 100% secret, why not just have an X in a box?
    How is it not secret? D'ye think there are massed ranks of disapproving social democrats standing around the polling station, tutting and tapping their noses every time some one picks up a blank sheet of paper?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203

    You'll all be delighted to know that in the next few days I'll be publishing a thread comparing current political events to The Second Punic War.

    Given the ongoing mess and division entailed by Brexit, the Thirty Years War might be more appropriate.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,399
    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    If Cook is out for 20, he will have scored 12345 test runs.

    But he needs over 50 to push his average above 45 (which would still be by far the lowest of any player with ten thousand runs, incidentally).

    Edit - to be exact he needs 50 or more.
    Most of them didn't open the batting though.

    EDIT: And Cook had to do it in England half the time.
    The only other opener on that list is Gavaskar, who played in the 70s and 80s when pitches were worse and bowlers were better.

    Admittedly, he was also a phenomenal batsman who would have shone in any era.

    But even Boycott managed 47 despite playing on well past his best and missing 30 Tests while at his peak in a fit of pique.
This discussion has been closed.