Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump is clearing the road to his own impeachment
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump is clearing the road to his own impeachment
‘La Famiglia’by Marf
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I think that can be described as 'good news.'
Or something like that.
Don't blame me, I'm only reporting!
Trump’s relationship with the truth is hardly straightforward.
I have to disagree there. I think the premise is incorrect. Trump has no relationship with the truth.
*My computer changed that to 'toddlers'. While a phrase about toys and prams springs to mind over the shutdown, I changed it back as it was unfair to toddlers to suggest they bore any resemblance to Trump.
But of course, Roe vs Wade was the best thing that ever happened to "the evangelical right". It motivated people who felt they had been cheated, and it meant those on the other side of the debate had no reason to go to the ballot boxes.
Overturning Roe vs Wade will - in all probability - result in the ballot box legalisation of abortion in pretty much all of America. Abortion will probably be more available, not less.
Talking of liars, I see that Boris ' new girlfriend calls him "my bozzy bear."
As for your second sentence...
Trump is Clinton to another level. He has almost all of Clinton's weaknesses, with few of his strengths.
Which if it regards Armageddon and Rapture as both desirable and achievable is more than a little alarming!
Do you think Melania is with Trump because she's into his toadstool shaped cock?
Incidentally, he is, apparently, according to his Grammar School history master, very good at the subject. However his father is worried about a career resulting from the study of same. Have you any thoughts?
Unusually I can understand the horror of the left that someone as uncomfortable to reason has reached the most powerful office in the world's principal democracy. However, this concern is misplaced and we should be relieved it has happened in the United States. Uniquely, the US Constitution, written at a time of dispute between overly strong-willed antagonists, is drafted on the assumption that all Presidents are potentially malign and probably intent only upon converting the office from supreme leader to Supreme Leader.
I doubt there are that many countries, very few outside western Europe where the constitution is so strong as to hold a complete nutter in a straight jacket. Look at what Putin, who could have been a Gareth Fitzgerald if he had been so minded has paralised the whole of central and eastern Europe.
Even in the European Union an extremist leader, even one with little apparent power has been able to leave a legacy of misery and mistrust: I speak of Jacques Delors. In the United States after four years, or at worst eight the influence of any President, however reprehensible, is forever dismissed into history.
The Dems have him where they want him if they can keep their nerve. He is going to have to back down on his wall, and then the base will go mental.
On impeachment: how does such a timetable work? We're into 2019 now, so time is a factor. If proceedings are underway, at what point (if it happens) is Trump compelled to leave office?
Many. In fact I was talking to Year 11 about this only the other week.
The key thing with A-levels is (1) find out what the requirements of the potential university courses are (in terms of grades and subjects) (2) consider what subjects are likely to get those grades. So if he's looking at Oxbridge, encourage him to think about which subjects he will be most likely to get A*/A in. If that's History, do History. If it's languages, go for that.
The problem with History viewed in isolation is it's not a direct link to many professions, unlike say, Business where the link is obvious. Off the top of my head, the two main ones would be law and education (broadly defined).
However, it's a very good bolt on to many other combinations to add breadth. So, for example, if doing a Mathematics and Physics combo it can be worth doing History to learn about extended reading and writing which is enormously helpful in doing job applications. Or, if doing economics and geography, history's a good option to learn about adding the wider context. If he doesn't yet know what he wants to do in his life, History has the breadth to keep his options open later. At degree level, it's very versatile as well - you can do a first degree in History and then add in say Politics or Economics later through a study of cliometrics (as I did). History can lead to a great many useful postgrad conversion courses.
As I've said on here before, there are two subjects that are light years ahead of the others in terms of complexity and prestige at A-level - Maths and Physics. But after that, History along with Geography, Chemistry and Languages would be in the next level. Which may also be a point to consider for your grandson.
It is, following all that, worth considering whether the teachers are good and he gets on with them. Because if they are, that in itself has a bearing on how well he's likely to do, which has a knock on effect on university choices and career pathways. As one of the comparatively few people to have both studied and taught all the way from primary schoolchildren to postgrads, I can honestly say that A-levels are by far the hardest course he will ever do - indeed, I think they're the toughest school leaving qualification in the world. Arguably, indeed, following the Govester's shambles they are too tough. So getting the subjects right for him is important.
Those are generic thoughts. Without knowing what your grandson's particular circumstances are, I can't offer anything more specific. Everyone's different. Bottom line is, if he's good at it, wants to do it and he doesn't want to do a course in say medicine where they demand all sciences, it's a serious option and he should consider it. Career prospects will sort themselves out if he gets the rest right.
And on your other question - our mocks are next month. And it's the summer I'm looking forward to!
It seems fairly obvious that impeachable offences occurred in relation to obstruction, and increasingly probable that Mueller has the evidence to reach that conclusion. That being the case, I think it's hard to see how a House of Representatives with quite a strong Democrat majority would NOT pass articles of impeachment in those circumstances.
Pelosi is, rightly, quite worried about being seen to be fixated on impeachment rather than "the People's business". But damning Mueller conclusions would rather force her hand. She can't really say, "Mueller says there is strong evidence of obstruction of justice but we, the Democrats, have rather an interesting Farms Bill to consider so can't be bothered with it..."
Senate wouldn't convict unless something big changes, of course. But that isn't the bet.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/18/us/politics/buzzfeed-cohen-russia-tower.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Your first point is important and certainly worth checking out. For example it is (or was, long ago) a requirement to do History at Cambridge that you had a language at A level, which probably suprised some potential applicants.
I would argue the skills you learn in history, of identifying the key arguments and facts from large amounts of reading, testing arguments against the evidence, and putting together a credible account from incomplete and partial (biased) sources, recognising where there are gaps or weaknesses that might allow for an alternative explanation, are very useful for a wide range of occupations.
It's a shame that studying nowadays seems to be so focused on tying in with particular jobs. Both my nephews started degree courses that as far as I can see consisted mostly of bookkeeping (basic accounting); neither of them found this fulfilling and they both dropped out and got jobs instead.
And frankly, he had a point about Big G’s pearl clutching - a point carried too far, sure - but the site will be drearier without him.
I never found out which former poster reinvented he was, but he did add to discussions and when he wasn't obviously trolling his arguments were usually worth thinking about. Banning him for a single comment last night when SeanT's rants have contained worse looks to me like a double standard.
Foxjr did history A level, but dropped it at the end of the first year. He found the essay writing and background reading too intense while also doing English and Theatre Studies, which also have very extensive requirements for writing and background work. His fourth was Art, so almost a relaxation from the book driven other subjects.
At the time it was normal to start 4 AS levels and finish 3 at A2, so this worked for him, but the new A level courses are heavier in workload and there is no AS from dropping one. I would seriously advise against doing 3 A levels with intense essay writing coursework requirements, unless he really, really enjoys doing them. A levels are much more intense than GCSE, and they were the most difficult exams I have ever done too.
My advice would be to consider the whole trio of A levels and how they hang together. Incidentally, History A level would be fine for Medicine. We do not require all Sciences. A at A level Chemistry is mandatory, and another Science or Maths too, but the third A level can be from the liberal Arts and indeed often adds something interesting.
To an extent you are correct, however, the new A-level and GCSE are not particularly good at that. That is why I would argue the key benefit of History is the breadth it adds to so many other combinations.
The other thing I would definitely add is that with A-levels the way they are for many people there will soon be no significant advantage to doing a Bachelor's degree over doing A-levels (and I say that as a former lecturer). Therefore outwith some subjects I think it will not be long before a number of universities mimic Scotland in offering the Masters as standard.
Edit - incidentally, I'm also very surprised to learn Chem is preferred to Bio. This shows how many from my school apply to do medicine...
White evangelicals who go to church, don't vote for him much. White evangelicals who don't go to church vote for him a lot...
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-ex-churchgoers-flocked-to-trump/
My knowledge of Cambridge entry requirements is over thirty years dated, but the two A level requirements for degree level History used to be A level history and an A level language (modern or classical). I know this because I switched to history for my third year without having either. My choice of courses was more restricted as a consequence.
I would support his return, assuming he apologises for upsetting G.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/19/labour-would-lose-voters-with-stop-brexit-policy-poll-suggests
Slogans yes but no serious explanation of why those of us to whom it makes a difference should have our livelihoods and wellbeing wrecked on a whim or worse; I heard a phone- in the other day when someone was asked what they meant by 'losing sovereignty'? 'they're telling us we have to have straight bananas'. On being told by the interviewer that was found to be untrue the caller said 'Oh. Well they made us bring in decimalisation'.
The point is that Leaving is going to cost maybe 25% of us in very direct terms and another say 20% in the way we see ourselves. And for what?
That's why Remainers are angry and see Leavers as a malevolent wrecking ball. Old people who want to turn the clocks back. Right wing nationalists with ugly motives and the majority who just think that as it doesn't affect them so why not? There's a lot to be angry about
It would be hard to paint him as a remainer if he's offering a harder Brexit than the one May has to offer, and he can sit out the actual campaign itself and remain neutral.
Sorry but there is no excuse for screaming in an old man's face about death.
"The more people worshipping and studying with neighbors with whom they shared a higher cause, the less belief that the American Dream was dead."
America has long been more religious than Europe, but I do think that there are parallels in the WWC Brexit vote in the UK. Here religion was less a factor than the decline of social institutions such as workplaces and trade unions. Atomised communities have much less commitment to the status quo. There is a Trump like desire in Brexit to create something to believe in.
Stay away from the John Prescott masks.
That said, your posts are often very interesting when you're not making strange comments about Yorkshire terriers and Polish slappers.
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/