Off Topic Thread 5.0

jacothelad wrote: »

There used ro be an elephant in Belfast Zoo that fu*ked cats. It used to stamp on them. They were totally fu*ked after that.....:D

Actually I like cats but wouldn't want to own one. Dogs have been a constant in my life for almost 70 years. I am in the North West Highlands doing a bit of climbing / hill walking and Buddy is struggling a bit. He is a big Lab and while he still looks great he is almost 11. We have had a fabulous morning in Torridon on an easy ridge / hill but I think we are now retired. I have to admit I prefer the company of dogs to most humans. It is hard to face this but at my age, 71, Buddy will most likely be my last companion. I just can't imagine life without a Labrador by my side.

Thank the redeemer this ended up metaphorical....

We do not deserve dogs and never will.

Zzippy

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

A long but fascinating read about the possible outcomes in the US election. I'm less optimistic about a Biden win after reading it.

kuang1

Zzippy wrote: »

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

A long but fascinating read about the possible outcomes in the US election. I'm less optimistic about a Biden win after reading it.

Haven't read this yet, but if Trump wins by appointment 35 days after the election (and right now this is a very realistic possibility), then we'll probably find out what a 21st century civil war in the west looks like.

Zzippy

kuang1 wrote: »

Haven't read this yet, but if Trump wins by appointment 35 days after the election (and right now this is a very realistic possibility), then we'll probably find out what a 21st century civil war in the west looks like.

It would be very one-sided. Trump would control the government and the military. He would have a majority conservative Supreme Court backing his legitimacy. Most of the private citizens with guns are on his side. The states have no military resources save a few police units, who let's face it, aren't going to fight a civil war against what many will see as their own legitimate president. You could see states declaring independence and/or forming an alliance to create a new country, which is leaving the country rather than starting a civil war, but would citizens of those states actually vote to leave the US, if it came down to it?

[Deleted User]

Zzippy wrote: »

It would be very one-sided. Trump would control the government and the military. He would have a majority conservative Supreme Court backing his legitimacy. Most of the private citizens with guns are on his side. The states have no military resources save a few police units, who let's face it, aren't going to fight a civil war against what many will see as their own legitimate president. You could see states declaring independence and/or forming an alliance to create a new country, which is leaving the country rather than starting a civil war, but would citizens of those states actually vote to leave the US, if it came down to it?

I don't think you can say for certain that Trump would have the military. He has called on them recently and been denied.

I don't see states leaving or forming a new country, but I can absolutely see state on state sanctions and serious criminal charges from Democrat controlled states against members of the federal government.

It's very close to being broken though - quite a worrying and unpredictable time. If Biden does win I think he's going to have to make constitutional reform a major focus.

kuang1

If it was at all possible, Biden should try to address and disband the electoral college.

I assume that that might be on a par with disbanding the Catholic Church though.

Paul Smeenus

For all the "checks and balances" rhetoric, it seems nigh-on impossible for Trump to be held to account.

Trump does not have the military on his side.

Look at the yahoos he sent into Portland, mostly prison guards and border police.

Zzippy

Neil3030 wrote: »

Trump does not have the military on his side.

Look at the yahoos he sent into Portland, mostly prison guards and border police.

I was responding to the suggested possibility of civil war. The president would have to invoke the insurrection act (IIRC) in order to use the military on US soil against US citizens. He couldn't do that for a riot in Portland. There was never any serious possibility of the military being used there.
In the case of actual civil war, he undoubtedly would. Assuming the supreme court have backed him, and he has been sworn in again, the military would certainly do their duty and carry out orders assigned to them by the "legitimate" president.

Zzippy wrote: »

I was responding to the suggested possibility of civil war. The president would have to invoke the insurrection act (IIRC) in order to use the military on US soil against US citizens. He couldn't do that for a riot in Portland. There was never any serious possibility of the military being used there.
In the case of actual civil war, he undoubtedly would. Assuming the supreme court have backed him, and he has been sworn in again, the military would certainly do their duty and carry out orders assigned to them by the "legitimate" president.

Very unlikely you'll have both conditions for a civil war and a President that was cleanly decided by SCOTUS. As that article points out, the most concerning constitutional situation for this election will be congressional, resulting from rival slates of EC electors in one or more states, and how various congressional arms (Senate, HOR, VP, Speaker, etc) interpret the Electroal Count Act when counting the votes. There could be three people (Biden, Trump, Pelosi) with a plausible claim to the White House.

In such a scenario, I don't see the Pentagon siding with the incumbent.

swiwi_

It is 1973. Roe vs Wade and abortion is made illegal. Fast forward to 2020 and Joe Biden is US president. In the upcoming election, Donald Trump might prevail. Supreme Court justice "Madame Conservative" has just passed away. The supreme court currently has a slight liberal advantage. With Biden in power, and democratic control of the senate, Biden has the chance to appoint another liberal justice, with an eye to reversing Roe vs Wade, and allowing abortion.

But it doesn't happen. Because democrats are universally principled to a man (and woman). The ends never justifies the means. So Biden states that it's too close to an election, and that the decision should await until after the election. Trump narrowly wins, appoints a conservative justice, and abortion remains illegal.

That's how it goes, right?

swiwi_ wrote: »

It is 1973. Roe vs Wade and abortion is made illegal. Fast forward to 2020 and Joe Biden is US president. In the upcoming election, Donald Trump might prevail. Supreme Court justice "Madame Conservative" has just passed away. The supreme court currently has a slight liberal advantage. With Biden in power, and democratic control of the senate, Biden has the chance to appoint another liberal justice, with an eye to reversing Roe vs Wade, and allowing abortion.

But it doesn't happen. Because democrats are universally principled to a man (and woman). The ends never justifies the means. So Biden states that it's too close to an election, and that the decision should await until after the election. Trump narrowly wins, appoints a conservative justice, and abortion remains illegal.

That's how it goes, right?

The hypothetical does not offset the empirical.

It's the most wonderful tiiiiime of the yeeeearrrr

That's right, FAT BEAR WEEK 2020.

Biggest shock entrant this year is the CUB of Holly (last year's champ), and my oh my is it a chubby little tyke. Mother is inflating nicely herself, and could meet her cub in the semi final.

On the other side of the bracket you have the GOAT, the people's champ, 1438lbs of Alaskan LEGEND that is 747. Whether he meets Holly or Jr in the final, it would be his third year on the row; can the ursine Clermont finally have his year?

EiyammaWoAASx7i?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

EiyammaWoAASx7i?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Anyone familiar with Ian O'Doherty? Heard him on the radio the other day and he seems like an almighty tool.

kuang1

Bazzo wrote: »

Anyone familiar with Ian O'Doherty? Heard him on the radio the other day and he seems like an almighty tool.

Haven't heard him in ages, but yeah he's been around a long time.
Contraversial for the sake of his career is how I'd describe him.

Only distinct thing I remember from his opinions is that he has a serious distaste of kids in general.

And is strongly against tipping!

Bazzo wrote: »

Anyone familiar with Ian O'Doherty? Heard him on the radio the other day and he seems like an almighty tool.

He's Gemma-lite. Angry and bitter.

kuang1 wrote: »

Haven't heard him in ages, but yeah he's been around a long time.
Contraversial for the sake of his career is how I'd describe him.

Only distinct thing I remember from his opinions is that he has a serious distaste of kids in general.

And is strongly against tipping!

thomond2006 wrote: »

He's Gemma-lite. Angry and bitter.

Haha yep, have had a Google since. Absolute muppet. I know there's a sense of journalistic balance to be met but I really dislike fools like that being given oxygen.

stephen_n

thomond2006 wrote: »

He's Gemma-lite. Angry and bitter.

George hook-lite would probably be more accurate.

stephen_n wrote: »

George hook-lite would probably be more accurate.

Yeah, fair.

I would have said IOD was much worse than Hook until Hook starting speaking at Ir*xit events...

Nah he was the poor man's Myers. A pseudo contrarian who couldn't hide that his motivations were grounded in a seething misanthropy.

Hook is so clownish I don't think he really expects to be taken seriously.

And Gemma O'D is very much in the modern social media age of overt populist sh*t stirrer.

Now can we please go back to the bears?

We can Neil.

The Chicago Bears are 3-0. BEAR DOWN!

Dave_The_Sheep

thomond2006 wrote: »

... until Hook starting speaking at Ir*xit events...

What, seriously? Ah man.

So Trump's tax returns finally leaked(conveniently timed..)

They're certainly interesting.

thomond2006 wrote: »

We can Neil.

The Chicago Bears are 3-0. BEAR DOWN!

747 would be a good addition to their O-line.

Bazzo wrote: »

So Trump's tax returns finally leaked(conveniently timed..)

They're certainly interesting.

With the Apprentice cash now dried up, it looks like the hearing into the potentially dodgy ~$70m refund in 2009 could end up bankrupting him.

Neil3030 wrote: »

With the Apprentice cash now dried up, it looks like the hearing into the potentially dodgy ~$70m refund in 2009 could end up bankrupting him.

Well, two possibilities. Either his tax returns are accurate and the money he scams from the government to house the secret service in his hotels is barely keeping the lights on or else he is the biggest tax cheat in history. No idea what's true to be honest

He also has hundreds of millions of debt coming due in the next few years, and is apparently on the hook for hundreds of millions of personal debt.

Really you would think a reasonable electorate would look at this and say "Jesus, he's unelectable" but this is the latest in a long long list of things that make him completely unelectable so I doubt they'll give a ****.

Buer

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

What, seriously? Ah man.

Indeed. Hook is the ideal target for such a movement. They're using him to deliver the message but also as a pawn. He's cantankerous and hankers for a bygone era which was actually totally sh*te. He's also not really at the height of his mental faculties. The leaders could easily manipulate him into alignging his thoughts with theirs.

molloyjh

The Trump taxes are bizarre. Theres definitely a lot of shady stuff going on with the expenses being claimed and almost certainly illegalities in there. But the bulk of what it contains seems legal, albeit entirely morally bankrupt. He's essentially deliberately losing money in a load of business so that he can claim those losses against his income tax and using legislation intended to help struggling businesses to further reduce the money he needs to pay the Gov.

Theres a lot of, on the surface of it, very shrewd accounting going on. But below the surface is the knife edge he seems to be sitting on all the time. But he can just file for bankruptcy again anyway if things go pear shaped for him.

At this stage the election has been decided, we just need to await the outcome. That he is still electable in any way after everything, including over 200k dead from C19, then his taxes aren't going to make a dent in anything. As Buer says, he is completely unelectable yet is still in the race. Its just bizarre, but thats not going to change in the next couple of months.