leicsmac

Two primary objectives - get the upper stage to splashdown in a manner that leaves it usable again, and catch the lower stage with the "chopsticks". Let's see. Edit: correction, launch at 1pm UK time.

Trump is on record as saying he won't run again if he loses, and he'd be 81 in 2028... but given the man lies as easily as most people breathe, who knows?

I don't reckon so, unless the kak really hits the fan and then there will be much bigger problems anyway. The issue for me is that the policy decisions they make resonate with the UK and practically every other place on the planet, so if they're "mad", everyone feels the burn.

I'll repeat what I've said before: the events of January 6th should at the very least have ended the political careers of anyone involved (and really there was an argument for criminal charges regarding insurrection that should have been pursued more). People should be free to see the world as they like depending on their own consciences, but when that worldview and choosing policy based on it directly and indirectly affects other people in a negative fashion - which is demonstrably true in the case of Trump, ask the family of Heather Heyer, to name but one - then there is a problem and there needs to be a serious conversation about it all. I'm not sure what the solution is, but decisions made in the next few years will have a critical bearing on the direction of our civilisation.

Alright then, let's have a quick look at the bigger picture: Remember, it's 270 to win. Solid Harris: California (54) Connecticut (7) Delaware (3) District Of Columbia (3) Hawaii (4) Maryland (10) Massachusetts (11) New York (28) Rhode Island (4) Vermont (3) Washington (12) TOTAL: 139 Probable Harris: Colorado (10) Illinois (19) New Jersey (14) Oregon (8) Maine CD1 (1) TOTAL: 52 Leaning Harris: Maine (2) New Hampshire (4) New Mexico (5) Virginia (13) TOTAL: 24 GRAND TOTAL: 215 Solid Trump: Alabama (9) Arkansas (6) Idaho (4) Indiana (11) Kentucky (8) Louisiana (8) Mississippi (6) Nebraska (4) North Dakota (3) Oklahoma (7) South Dakota (3) Tennessee (11) Utah (6) West Virginia (4) Wyoming (3) TOTAL: 93 Probable Trump: Alaska (3) Iowa (6) Kansas (6) Missouri (10) Montana (4) South Carolina (9) TOTAL: 38 Leaning Trump: Florida (30) Ohio (17) Texas (40) Maine CD2 (1) TOTAL: 88 GRAND TOTAL: 219 So without the battleground states, it's 219-215 to Trump. He needs 51 more electoral votes, Harris needs 59. And listing those states... Arizona (11) Georgia (16) Michigan (15) Minnesota (10) Nevada (6) North Carolina (16) Pennsylvania (19) Wisconsin (10) Nebraska CD2 (1) --------------------- So what does this all mean? Well, firstly the Beeb don't have Minnesota as a swing state... And secondly, Trump arguably only needs three of these nine states - Penn, Georgia and NC - to win. Harris needs those and one more, or to at least deny him one or maybe two out of the three. Counting from the bottom up, Harris needs any seven of these to guarantee victory, while Trump needs any six. It's obvious though that the four worth 15+ are the biggest prizes - win two and you're doing well, win three and you're practically there, for either candidate. Current Beeb polling has it two and two in terms of leads, RCP actually has Trump ahead (marginally) in all four, but it's very close either way. One final observation is that four years ago, Biden had decent leads in almost all of these states pretty much for most of the race. It's much, much tighter this time round.

I would think that the pollsters have taken into account Trumps cvnt of personality this time and ran the numbers, but who knows? I use Realclearpolitics.com for my polling data since 538 went down the pan, hopefully I'm wrong. I'll have to look closer, but my initial thoughts are that seeing he has Ohio and Florida pretty much sorted, he may not need all the other critical ones.

Trump now creeping ahead in poll data in vital battleground states. May future generations forgive us for what we leave them. NB. If anyone wants me to put regular polling numbers up here as things develop between now and Nov 5, I can.

Certainly democracy is the best bad idea that exists for governance that we have right now. However, on matters like this, it is rather clear that it can be counterproductive at best and flat-out choosing societal collapse and extinction by committee vote at worst. If it doesn't lead that way, I'm be glad to know exactly how, because it would be incredibly useful for the future.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/10/hurricane-milton-conspiracies-misinformation/680221/?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share Every lie incurs a debt to the truth. One day, that debt is paid. And the Earth can be the harshest of creditors. It demands repayment in blood, lives and suffering.

Perhaps. But then they play the PR game extremely well. Which brings me to my next point... ...I think the bolded was the exact point being made, and I wish that they didn't use their PR savvy to imply in any way otherwise. The lack of honesty of purpose is rather sickening, especially when so many people clearly buy into it.

They haven't, but then depending on the situation, how would they know? If they don't, then the Israeli word becomes all anyone has to go on. Again, it comes down to trust, I think.

Bingo. That's pretty much exactly what they've recently said. It comes down to whose account of events you believe, I guess. And on that score, I would consider the UN bods more trustworthy every day of the week, twice on Sundays, and would be interested in any logical argument to the contrary.

I wonder how much of that is their problem and how much is the Lebanese army being ineffective, given the lack of enforcing power UNIFIL have? But yes, fair point. Also with all of that said, deliberately targeting UN facilities because they didn't keep guns and fighters out of an area (even if they had the power to do so) comes right under the heading of "disproportionate response" (with a side helping of "bugger off so we can cleanse this area with fire regardless of who's on the way and not look too bad doing it"), which is of course an Israeli speciality.

This is exactly right. So perhaps it's time for the parts of the world that actually have the power to do so to more effectively do something about the underlying causes that lead to that, rather than blithely, lazily and unempathetically considering it "just the way things are" and writing off vast swathes of our species and other species as condemned.

I hear that. Personally, when I'm listening to them now I hear people who are rightly pissed off that their efforts to help people are being deliberately stymied despite being exclusively a humanitarian operation, and not really being able to speak out much about it, point fingers or take action because of the vow of neutrality they have to uphold.

Yeah, the UN is clearly getting rather irate at the whole thing and making the lines in the sand pretty clearly delineated. Can I clarify if this is an accusation of bias from the UN or not?

And this person has equal influence over government policy on this matter(one vote) to a climate scientist.

In all seriousness about the topic above, I am agog to know how the scientific and environmental policy of a Trump administration would be the lesser of two evils for our species and the biosphere. Seriously, I'd love to hear a cogent argument on that.

Superb win.

Starship Flight 5 could be going up this weekend.

Yeah, the bar is properly fvcking low. But these are the times we live in. Right. It's utterly labyrinthine. And it costs decent people money, health and sometimes life.

Nothing when you've actually paid the insurance for it. That's what it's for. But then in the US that's never the case, is it?

Though, as is the case with Starmer, the option doesn't have to be charismatic or very inspiring (though as with Obama, those would be a plus). The option just has to not be a sociopath enabling other sociopaths who care nothing about the future or anyone outside their "in-group".

Should be something about basic rights to bodily autonomy in there too tbh.

Little bit frustrating that show focused on numerous areas where Trump could appear "strong" and pander to halftruths and prejudices (economics and immigration) and next to none where he and his platform could be challenged much more solidly (women's and minority rights issues, scientific policy). Clearly they're the most "important" issues for a lot of Americans, but the focus on immediate short term gain issues just plays to the strengths of those who value short term thinking most and leads nowhere good long term.