nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Off Topic Thread 5.0

[Deleted User]

Thread continued from here https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057835955&page=250

The usual rules apply. Non-rugby talk here. Consider this a social place, but like a pub, things like religion and politics can be divisive, so don't say things here you wouldn't say to someone's face in the pub. Sober

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Zzippy wrote: »

Nope. There's not a hope Pence wins against Biden.
For a start, he's not on the ballot, and states have already started voting. It's too late to add him to the ballot in many states.
For a second, he has barely uttered a word in 4 years, he's been completely and utterly overshadowed by Trump and has been the most passive VP in recent memory.
For a third, much of Trump's voting base is energised by Trump, not the GOP. Pence has zero charisma, he's a career politician so he can't run on an anti-elite, MAGA agenda like Trump did.

The only reason I would want Trump to survive is to face the courts next year, but in the meantime, 3 months on a ventilator would do everyone a power of good.

I heard on a podcast (think it was Neil Stannage on Eamon Dunphy's The Stand) saying that all votes already cast for Trump, if anything happens to Trump, will go to Pence and the election will continue as if Pence is Trump

Buer

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Govt can make a real statement if they come down hard on the GAA. Cut off any cash from tax payer etc, threaten to ban inter county games. Get them to step it up. Some of the scenes from weekend are a result of clubs promoting celebration parties on social media etc there is far too much of this "it will be grand" nonsense. They tried to find a middle ground to keep as many businesses open and protect the health services. It won't work. I fear we will see level 5 in November simply because there is too many people who just don't want to follow public health guidelines. 10% is 500000 people. That is a considerable number who can do considerable damage.

Any measures against an organisation such as the GAA needs to be appropriate and considered. These clubs are key parts of communities up and down the country providing an important service to young and old. To cut off financial support, punishes the kids who need new equipment or elderly contingent who attend community events that take place in the clubhouse etc.

The GAA is an independent organisation so it's going to be very hard for them to actually implement punishments without the GAA being on board and supporting such measures which, lets be honest, isn't going to happen. Appropriate measures would be to throw certain teams out of competitions but the GAA will not be dictated to and no political party is going to risk putting their nose out of joint; they're the biggest organisation in the state by a distance and they'll circle the wagons against any criticism they receive.

Buer

Deleted User wrote: »

I heard on a podcast (think it was Neil Stannage on Eamon Dunphy's The Stand) saying that all votes already cast for Trump, if anything happens to Trump, will go to Pence and the election will continue as if Pence is Trump

I don't think it's as clear as that. I think it goes into an absolute legal minefield which would be open to challenge. The RNC would have to confirm the new candidate and, at this late stage, that process isn't really possible as voting has commenced.

For a third, much of Trump's voting base is energised by Trump, not the GOP. Pence has zero charisma, he's a career politician so he can't run on an anti-elite, MAGA agenda like Trump did.

You're assuming there's some sort of logic to the average Trump supporter. The best result possible would be some of those Trump supporters just don't bother to vote at all but Pence and the GOP could very easily come up with a plan of voting Pence in as a tribute or to continue the work of Trump etc. in honour of him. They'd tap into the cult mentality with ease.

I would expect the massive majority of Trump supporters would vote for Pence if given the choice between Pence, Biden and not voting.

sydthebeat

Utah_Saint wrote: »

I googled too...

https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data

perhaps youll believe a BBC report over a blog post then??

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207

There have been 2,243 drone strikes in the first two years of the Trump presidency, compared with 1,878 in Mr Obama's eight years in office, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a UK-based think tank.

As a result, things have different today: under Mr Trump, there are more drone strikes - and less transparency.

Tara McKelvey, BBC News, White House Reporter

[Deleted User]

Buer wrote: »

I don't think it's as clear as that. I think it goes into an absolute legal minefield which would be open to challenge. The RNC would have to confirm the new candidate and, at this late stage, that process isn't really possible as voting has commenced.

Okay well Niall Stanage is a White House reporter. It's his job to know these things. He stated that there is a process in place and it is roughly what I outlined. Forgive me if I take his word over yours.

Squidgy Black

Spicy stuff for a Tuesday afternoon.

Utah_Saint

sydthebeat wrote: »

perhaps youll believe a BBC report over a blog post then??

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207

Tara McKelvey, BBC News, White House Reporter

What i don't understand is how a number of different sources produce such a varied number of Strikes?

the details you provided would suggest Trump has a strike rate of 3 per day, every day for two years.

irishbucsfan

Utah_Saint wrote: »

What i don't understand is how a number of different sources produce such a varied number of Strikes?

the details you provided would suggest Trump has a strike rate of 3 per day, every day for two years.

Would that not be directly linked to the fact they’ve changed the legislation around reporting?

Zzippy

Buer wrote: »

I don't think it's as clear as that. I think it goes into an absolute legal minefield which would be open to challenge. The RNC would have to confirm the new candidate and, at this late stage, that process isn't really possible as voting has commenced.

You're assuming there's some sort of logic to the average Trump supporter. The best result possible would be some of those Trump supporters just don't bother to vote at all but Pence and the GOP could very easily come up with a plan of voting Pence in as a tribute or to continue the work of Trump etc. in honour of him. They'd tap into the cult mentality with ease.

I would expect the massive majority of Trump supporters would vote for Pence if given the choice between Pence, Biden and not voting.

When I said "energised by Trump" I was thinking of turnout. Pence just doesn't energise people in that way. I can see a massive drop in voter turnout among Trump's core support if the candidate was Pence.

Deleted User wrote: »

I heard on a podcast (think it was Neil Stannage on Eamon Dunphy's The Stand) saying that all votes already cast for Trump, if anything happens to Trump, will go to Pence and the election will continue as if Pence is Trump

It's not as clearcut as that. The slate of electors for each state can choose who to vote for. Pence would be nominated as a replacement candidate and electors could vote for him in the electoral college. But some states have laws that say their electors can only vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in that state. If Pence wasn't on the ballot (and he can't be added now) they are bound by law not to vote for him. Now, those states could quickly pass laws allowing this to change, but if any of those states have a Democrat majority in their "state congress" I can't see them allowing it.

Buer

Deleted User wrote: »

Okay well Niall Stanage is a White House reporter. It's his job to know these things. He stated that there is a process in place and it is roughly what I outlined. Forgive me if I take his word over yours.

Whilst I appreciate the assumption that I actually hold an eduated opinion on such topics, I'm repeating the words political correspondent and Washington correspondent from the New York Times who wrote on article on the topic this week.

What happens if Trump cannot run anymore?
It gets messy, quickly.

First, the Republican National Committee would have to produce a new nominee, a process that would involve Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and the 168 national members — three from each state and territory. But since many states have already started printing, mailing and accepting ballots, and some have begun in-person voting, the name of a new nominee could be unlikely to be printed on ballots in time for Election Day.

Then it would fall to individual states to decide how to proceed, and most have not set rules for this situation.

“It would be a question of what each state’s law says or doesn’t say about what happens in this eventuality, and many state laws are just silent on this possibility,” said Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, who also discussed the issue on his Election Law blog. “So there may be questions about what to do.”

The question would become more complex if Mr. Trump won but was unable to serve. Some but not all states bind their electors to vote for whoever wins the state, but even most states with binding elector laws make no mention of what could happen should a candidate die or be unable to serve.

The question could be resolved by Congress, which certifies the Electoral College vote, or it could end up in the courts.

[Deleted User]

Like I always said, Niall Stanage is a charlatan

sydthebeat

Utah_Saint wrote: »

What i don't understand is how a number of different sources produce such a varied number of Strikes?

the details you provided would suggest Trump has a strike rate of 3 per day, every day for two years.

with respect, when you look at the numbers provided in that blog post... and see 2017 with a total of 4 strikes worldwide ... you have to ask yourself can that actually be honest?

then consider who the president is at that time, and ask yourself can this be honest?

then consider how trump has enacted legislation to keep drone strikes secret.....

[Deleted User]

Biden has pulled to a 14 point nationwide gap over Trump according to CNN. Trump used his limited speaking appearance yesterday to call polling 'fake news' which surprises no one but also highlights the precariousness of his position.

If he relapses in anyway that 14 point widens. He has gained no sympathy support at all so I suspect those who are voting against him are not for turning.

There probably won't be another debate, Harris is going to give Pence a serious black eye on Thursday and will likely launch a full attack on the Republican platform rather than engaging with Pence as he is such an empty fixture.

It's Biden or fraud at this point and the sooner this all ends the better, the misinformation is even leaking into the off topic thread at this stage.

FACECUTTR

Zzippy wrote: »

Nah. F*ck him. The world is a safer place without Donald Trump. I hope he dies or rots on a ventilator for the next 3 months.

Dont hold back. Tell us how you really feel

OldRio

Utah_Saint wrote: »

excellent counter argument...

Others are doing a far better job than I.

[Deleted User]

Utah_Saint wrote: »

...

Your post reads like someone who is getting their information and world view from skewed left wing sources.....

Deleted User wrote: »

Biden has pulled to a 14 point nationwide gap over Trump according to CNN.

...

:pac:

molloyjh

Utah_Saint wrote: »

I googled too...

https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data

This blog was written on Trumps first day. I'm confused what exactly it is meant to prove.

Utah_Saint wrote: »

What i don't understand is how a number of different sources produce such a varied number of Strikes?

the details you provided would suggest Trump has a strike rate of 3 per day, every day for two years.

I dont think we know if there really is any significant difference in the figures given they are all measuring different things. The BBC article has a total number of strikes across the globe. The Chicago Sun Times article focuses solely on strikes in Yemen, Somalia & Pakistan. It goes on to mention a surge in strikes in Afghanistan, Iraq & Syria. These are the countries you'd expect to have the majority of the strikes carried out. So the Chicago Sun Times gives a tiny window into the true figures.

Also, as the Chicago Sun Times article mentions, changes in how these things are reported means they have little real clarity on what is happening. This would certainly lead to at least some discrepancies among different outlets.

sydthebeat wrote: »

with respect, when you look at the numbers provided in that blog post... and see 2017 with a total of 4 strikes worldwide ... you have to ask yourself can that actually be honest?

Check the date of the blog post.

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

Biden has pulled to a 14 point nationwide gap over Trump according to CNN. Trump used his limited speaking appearance yesterday to call polling 'fake news' which surprises no one but also highlights the precariousness of his position.

If he relapses in anyway that 14 point widens. He has gained no sympathy support at all so I suspect those who are voting against him are not for turning.

There probably won't be another debate, Harris is going to give Pence a serious black eye on Thursday and will likely launch a full attack on the Republican platform rather than engaging with Pence as he is such an empty fixture.

It's Biden or fraud at this point and the sooner this all ends the better, the misinformation is even leaking into the off topic thread at this stage.

yep

biden is at 1/2 in the betting, with trump at 13/8

at one stage yesterday Biden was at 4/9 which is the shortest he has been so far.

while betting odds arent polls, they do show where the general assumption is towards victory.

Utah_Saint

sydthebeat wrote: »

with respect, when you look at the numbers provided in that blog post... and see 2017 with a total of 4 strikes worldwide ... you have to ask yourself can that actually be honest?

then consider who the president is at that time, and ask yourself can this be honest?

then consider how trump has enacted legislation to keep drone strikes secret.....

Yeah - I suppose we will never get the real figures for either president. While we discuss numbers on a spreadsheet you kinda forget the impact these events had/has. Weddings, Town meetings, family gatherings all 'accidentally' targeted and classed as collateral damage.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

:pac:

Sure, but then NBC have him at a 14 point gap, CNBC a 13 point gap and 538 an 11 point gap. I'm not posting an outlier or fake news, CNN is one of the most recognisable news brands in the world and it's poll yesterday seems to have drawn Trumps ire.

molloyjh

Utah_Saint wrote: »

Yeah - I suppose we will never get the real figures for either president. While we discuss numbers on a spreadsheet you kinda forget the impact these events had/has. Weddings, Town meetings, family gatherings all 'accidentally' targeted and classed as collateral damage.

And while Obama was certainly no saint in that regard, Trump has effectively removed almost every single control over these strikes and massively increased their usage. There can be no doubt who has had the worst impacts here. And no surprise either.

sydthebeat

Utah_Saint wrote: »

Yeah - I suppose we will never get the real figures for either president. While we discuss numbers on a spreadsheet you kinda forget the impact these events had/has. Weddings, Town meetings, family gatherings all 'accidentally' targeted and classed as collateral damage.

difference being Obama legislated that those numbers be transparent and reported

whereas Trump reversed that because he felt that reporting was too "distracting" and "superfluous"... such a nice guy....

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207

molloyjh

sydthebeat wrote: »

difference being Obama legislated that those numbers be transparent and reported

whereas Trump reversed that because he felt that reporting was too "distracting" and "superfluous"... such a nice guy....

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207

If the Chicago Sun Times is to be believed, Obama didn't offer that up voluntarily. He came under pressure to do it. So the difference there is Obama realised the importance of acquiescing to that pressure where as Trump simply didn't care. Trump is clearly far worse, but Obama isn't exactly role model material here either.

kuang1

sydthebeat wrote: »

yep

biden is at 1/2 in the betting, with trump at 13/8

at one stage yesterday Biden was at 4/9 which is the shortest he has been so far.

while betting odds arent polls, they do show where the general assumption is towards victory.

And just to prove this even more, I've no link, but distinctly remember Hilary @ 1/8 (on paddypower) as I headed to bed on the 8th November 2016.

[Deleted User]

kuang1 wrote: »

And just to prove this even more, I've no link, but distinctly remember Hilary @ 1/8 (on paddypower) as I headed to bed on the 8th November 2016.

There really is very little comparison between Clinton v Trump polling and Biden v Trump.

Clinton bar occasional highs and outliers was regularly within the margin of error and after the reopening of the FBI email investigation the gap narrowed substantially in the last 10 days of the campaigns.

Biden is looking at Lindon B Johnson type numbers at the moment (subject to fraud) and even if he wasn't, his specific polling in key states is insurmountable without a complete sea change in sentiment between now and November (or widespread fraud).

Anything can happen, but it increasingly looks like only fraud and court stacking will save Trump here. Biden is around in politics for decades so it's unlikely there are any remaining skeletons to use against him.

Stheno

GARDAÍ will from tomorrow be putting up 132 checkpoints across the entire country on the main arterial routes, including motorways, to ensure people are complying with Level 3 lockdown guidelines.

"Travelling tomorrow is going to a lot different to travelling today," said Garda Commissioner Drew Harris as he announced the measures at Garda HQ in the Phoenix Park, Dublin.

He warned of traffic jams. "We are putting checkpoints on the motorways, that's going to slow down traffic flow," he said.

While officers have not been given the powers by Government to enforce the guidelines, he suggested they were not needed for now, pointing out that of the hundreds of thousands of stops made during the last lockdown, special powers then afforded to gardaí were used only 342 times.

"Policing is an extension of good citizenship," he said.

Officers at the stops will be focusing on 'the three Es' - engage, educate and encourage.

While the Commissioner admitted that a motorist will be able to continue on, even if stopped and asked to turn back by officers, he said it would be "a foolish choice".

Asked how officers will be dealing with house parties, he pointed out that there are certain protections for citizens.

"There is a constitutional protection of the home," he said, but added gardaí will have a presence in areas where people are not following the guidelines.

"Having gardaí positioned outside your home during a house party will really dampen the mood," he said.

So no powers to enforce restrictions but greater Garda presence from tomorrow

Neil3030

Deleted User wrote: »

There really is very little comparison between Clinton v Trump polling and Biden v Trump.

Clinton bar occasional highs and outliers was regularly within the margin of error and after the reopening of the FBI email investigation the gap narrowed substantially in the last 10 days of the campaigns.

Biden is looking at Lindon B Johnson type numbers at the moment (subject to fraud) and even if he wasn't, his specific polling in key states is insurmountable without a complete sea change in sentiment between now and November (or widespread fraud).

Anything can happen, but it increasingly looks like only fraud and court stacking will save Trump here. Biden is around in politics for decades so it's unlikely there are any remaining skeletons to use against him.

Also, polls have been reweighted since 2016 to account for the omission that led to so many of them getting it wrong - uneducated white voters who don't respond to polls have migrated to Trump, whereas before they were assumed to lean Democrat.

This has now been factored into models. While this doesn't mean Trump will definitely lose, it means that we'll likely not get a surprise on Election Night.

Also worth noting, Nate Silver fully admits they may now be overweighting Trumps chances, and that Biden's lead could be even bigger.

Richie_Rich89

sydthebeat wrote: »

with respect, when you look at the numbers provided in that blog post... and see 2017 with a total of 4 strikes worldwide ... you have to ask yourself can that actually be honest?

then consider who the president is at that time, and ask yourself can this be honest?

then consider how trump has enacted legislation to keep drone strikes secret.....

Obama created the refugee crisis by destabilising Libya and sponsoring terrorists in Syria to try to topple al-Assad.

He also effectively created IS by pulling out of Iraq too fast.

mfceiling

Where's Neil and those fúcking bears?

Squidgy Black

Star Wars Squadron is decent anyways lads would recommend as Venjur mentioned earlier.

Thought it was relevant since it's all Rebels vs Imperial talk here now.....