Foregone Conclusion


For anyone who thinks Trump won’t ultimately secure the nomination, you might want to check with the bookies, because Paddy Power has gone ahead and paid out on Trump winning the GOP nomination.

“Since 1988, the candidate to clean up on Super Tuesday has always gone onto win their party’s nomination,” Ireland’s largest bookmaker said in e-mailed statement on Wednesday. As Bloomberg notes, “gambling companies pay out early when they regard the result as a foregone conclusion, in part because it draws publicity and in part because gamblers often recycle winnings into other wagers.”


And the next wager is on Trump taking the oath of office. It’s looking more and more likely that that bet will pay off early too.

Conventional wisdom is that Hillary will make mincemeat of Donald, and she’ll be a shoo-in for the presidency. But I think it’ll be the other way round.

It’ll be like Chrissie’s Last Swim in Jaws 1:

…with Donald as the Great White Shark.

And in the UK a surprising number of Tory grandees are lining up behind Brexit:

Now Lamont backs Brexit: After Michael Howard, a second Dave mentor turns against the PM on Europe

Lord Lamont said Britain must leave EU to regain ‘control of our borders’

David Cameron has now lost the support of both his early political mentors

Lord Howard backed Brexit, said Downing Street’s renegotiation had failed

Immigration from within EU added 170,000 to population last year, figures showed

And maybe it’s just me misreading it, but the Remain group doesn’t seem to have the equivalent sort of power behind it. Where’s Michael Heseltine?

And what does it mean when the leader of the Labour party doesn’t seem to be in the least bit interested in the referendum?

Jeremy Corbyn should be campaigning for Brexit – but he just doesn’t care

I still think that Remain will win, even if the ballot boxes have to be stuffed to do it.


About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Foregone Conclusion

  1. For a vote of this importance and unusual nature, your comment about ballot stuffing may have some real merit — and it would be an excellent opportunity for any Watchdog type groups/systems to REALLY put some resources into checking voting irregularities. The whole premise of democratic political systems rests upon voting being a valid count. We’re all familiar with tales from “reformed” dictatorships holding their first “open election” and winning by 99.5%, but supposedly countries like the UK or US etc have “valid” elections (and I believe they generally *are* valid since the opposing parties have such a keen interest in detecting and exposing cheating.)

    Still, the unusual subject of this particular vote, one that does not cross purely along party lines, might open some chinks in any normal cover-ups of irregularities and it’s an opportunity that shouldn’t be missed!

    – MJM

    • Rose says:

      MJM, I’ve been watching this develop with considerable interest.

      Will the Electoral Commission act over Tory Thanet expenses?

      “Did the Tories spent twice as much in defeating Nigel Farage in Thanet South last year as they were legally allowed under the rules?”

      Conservative election expenses: the timeline

      “Evidence obtained by Channel 4 News appears to show that the Conservatives racked up tens of thousands of pounds in undisclosed spending across three by-elections.”

      “October 2014-November 2014

      The Conservatives appear to deploy greater resource still into the Rochester by-election following Mark Reckless’ dramatic departure from the Tory party at UKIP’s annual conference. Their declared spend comes in close to the legal limit – totalling £96,793.08. But bills obtained by Channel 4 News from the town’s Premier Inn and from the Bridgewood Manor hotel appear to show another £56,866.75 of what seems to be undisclosed spending. The receipt from the former shows rooms booked in the name “Mr Conservatives” – while this programme has also obtained pages of bookings from the more upmarket establishment.”

      I expect something similar over the referendum.
      Still, if 13 years of Labour gave the British public no more than a crash course in political spin, we should be up to the challenge.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      EPA & FDA: Vapor Harmless to Children

      April 3, 2014 matt black

      In the continued war on e-cigarettes, we hear about the “potential dangers” of e-cigarette vapor and the “unknown public health risks.”

      First, I find it absolutely absurd that we’re attempting to pass laws based on unknowns, but what makes it even more absurd is the fact that there’s very little that isn’t known about e-cigarette vapor at this point. The primary ingredient of concern to those who wish to see e-cigarettes banned is the propylene glycol vapor, which has been studied for over 70 years.

      I recently came across a document titled, “Reregistration Eligibility Decision For Propylene Glycol and Dipropylene Glycol“, which was created by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

      Catchy title. I was intrigued.

      This quote caught my eye:

      Propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol were first registered in 1950 and 1959, respectively, by the FDA for use in hospitals as air disinfectants. (page 4, paragraph 1).

      In a previous post, I had shared the summary of research that had been done in 1942 by Dr. Robertson regarding the antibacterial properties of vaporized propylene glycol, but I had never heard that the FDA wound up approving it for the purpose of an air disinfectant in hospitals.

      Indoor Non-Food: Propylene glycol is used on the following use sites: air treatment (eating establishments, hospital, commercial, institutional, household, bathroom, transportational facilities); medical premises and equipment, commercial, institutional and industrial premises and equipment; (page 6, paragraph 2)


      Method and Rates of Application


      Air Sanitizer

      Read the directions included with the automatic dispenser for proper installation of unit and refill. Remove cap from aerosol can and place in a sequential aerosol dispenser which automatically releases a metered amount every 15 minutes. One unit should treat 6000 ft of closed air space… For regular, non-metered applications, spray room until a light fog forms. To sanitize the air, spray 6 to 8 seconds in an average size room (10’x10′). (page 6, paragraph 6)

      A common argument used to support the public usage ban is that, “Minnesotans have become accustomed to the standard of clean indoor air.” However, according to the EPA and FDA, so long as there’s a “light fog” of propylene glycol vapor in the air, the air is actually more clean than the standard that Minnesotans have become accustomed to.

      General Toxicity Observations

      Upon reviewing the available toxicity information, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. This conclusion is based on the results of toxicity testing of propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol in which dose levels near or above testing limits (as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines) were employed in experimental animal studies and no significant toxicity observed.

      Carcinogenicity Classification

      A review of the available data has shown propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol to be negative for carcinogenicity in studies conducted up to the testing limit doses established by the Agency; therefore, no further carcinogenic analysis is required. (page 10, paragraphs 1 & 2)

      Ready for the bombshell? I probably should have put this at the top, as it could have made this post a lot shorter, but I figured the information above was important, too…

      2. FQPA Safety Factor

      The FQPA Safety Factor (as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996) is intended to provide an additional 10-fold safety factor (10X), to protect for special sensitivity in infants and children to specific pesticide residues in food, drinking water, or residential exposures, or to compensate for an incomplete database. The FQPA Safety Factor has been removed (i.e., reduced to 1X) for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol because there is no pre- or post-natal evidence for increased susceptibility following exposure. Further, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol based on the low toxicity observed in studies conducted near or above testing limit doses as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines. Therefore, quantitative risk assessment was not conducted for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol.

      In a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health by Dr. Robertson in April of 1946, Robertson cites a study published in the Edinburgh Medical Journal, which was conducted in 1944:

      The report of the 3 years’ study of the clinical application of the disinfection of air by glycol vapors in a children’s convalescent home showed a marked reduction in the number of acute respiratory infections occurring in the wards treated with both propylene and triethylene glycols. Whereas in the control wards, 132 infections occured during the course of three winters, there were only 13 such instances in the glycol wards during the same period. The fact that children were, for the most part, chronically confined to bed presented an unusually favorable condition for the prophylactic action of the glycol vapor.

      An investigation of the effect of triethylene glycol vapor on the respiratory disease incidence in military barracks brought out the fact that, while for the first 3 weeks after new personnel entered the glycolized area the disease rate remained the same as in the control barracks, the second 3 week period showed a 65 percent reduction in acute respiratory infections in the glycol treated barracks. Similar effects were observed in respect to airborne hemolytic streptococci and throat carriers of this microorganism.

      I don’t expect the prohibitionist lawmakers to delve this deeply into this subject on their own, but I certainly hope that when presented with this data that they reevaluate their stance on the subject and consider what science has to say. If they don’t, they’re simply basing their judgement off of rhetoric, misinformation, and personal bias and we all know where that gets us.

  2. smokingscot says:

    Bound to happen. LORD Mandelson makes no secret of the fact he’s righteously ticked off that we’re even getting a referendum. And he wants our David to sack every cabinet minister who has the temerity to speak out in favour of our leaving that political cesspit.

    And let’s not forget the other heavy hitters; the one’s we miss so terribly much. Tony Blair, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable. And let’s not forget dear, sweet, Stephen Williams – who’s also 100% pro the EU!

    • Rose says:

      I had been wondering what Peter Mandelson meant by “We are now entering the post democratic age” ever since he was reported to have said it.

  3. prog says:

    Message to the Democrats – ‘You’re gonna need a bigger vote’

  4. Rose says:

    This caught my eye last night.

    The EU Inners will regret turning Project Fear into Project White Flag

    “By depicting the UK Government as powerless, they are encouraging a challenge to its authority”

    “We are beggars, not choosers: that, it increasingly seems, is the Government’s message on Brexit. We have no choice and no power: we can either take what little we have been given and remain a member of the EU, warts and all, or face economic, social and cultural catastrophe. There is Project Fear, and then there is Project White Flag, and the Remain side appears to have conflated the two. In doing so, it has made a strategic blunder of epic proportions, turning its greatest strength into yet another weakness.”

    “Project White Flag, as we should learn to call it, boils down to one long stream of nauseating, miserable, declinist negativity. Alarm bells ought to be going off in Downing Street: politicians don’t win elections or referenda by pretending to be weak and powerless, and by claiming to be at the mercy of foreign governments.”

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      me Im right in between conservative to libertarian

      • Heehee… When I was visiting in South Carolina about 8 years ago with some of the SmokersClub folks, I spent an evening with my hostess visiting and sitting on the front porch chatting with some Good Ol’ Boys over glasses of bourbon (seriously!) At one point fairly early on in the conversation one of them challenged me, the long haired hippie Yankee, with “Are you a Liberal or a Conservative?” I answered, without skipping a beat, “Neither. I’m a Radical.”

        Heh, they LOVED it! We had a great rest of the evening!


        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Damn wish Id been there,I guaranteed a very deep nite of radical talk of treason and such.

    • Some French bloke says:

      Looking at the above graph of the political spectrum, I notice that the “moderate” is the only category to warrant inverted commas (scare quotes). Could it be because the people going by that name these days have proved unable to strike a viable balance between the extremes of “communism” and “anarchy”? Unalduterated communism, if possible, would lead to a collectivism that thoroughly negates the individual’s rights and aspirations. OTOH, describing oneself an uncompromising anarchist can only lead to a stance of pure solipsism (i.e. “I’m the only sentient being in the whole universe, therefore all that’s not me is mine”, cf. Max Stirner). Could it be that the ones brave enough to claim themselves “anarcho-communists” are the real moderates?

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Why buying a home from a smoker raises YOUR diabetes risk: Third hand smoke can linger in furniture and carpets for decades
      Harmful toxins from tobacco smoke settle on furnishings and walls
      They are easily breathed in by crawling babies when dust is disturbed
      Studies show they damage the liver and lungs and slow wound healing

      Read more:

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        The warning, which affects those planning to rented furnished accommodation, as well as homebuyers, comes from Californian researchers who studied the effect of third-hand smoke on mice’s health.

        While second-hand smoke is the smoke we breathe in from being near a smoker, third-hand smoke refers to the cocktail of chemicals that lingers in carpets, sofas, plasterboard and paint long after the last cigarette is put out

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          RTW1, East Coast, United States, 18 hours ago

          Live 3,000 miles away and you buy things labeled, ‘This product contains stuff known to the State of California to be capable of destroying the Universe.’

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          don’t guess it matters they haven’t updated comments in 4-6 hours

      • Here’s the study of how third hand smoke “slows wound healing” — along with my analysis of it — from pg 235:

        In 2007, a study was published in the Journal of Periodontology showing that subjects with periodontitis (a potentially serious gum disease) who were exposed to secondhand smoke were supposedly more likely to develop bone damage, the number one cause of tooth loss. According to the president of the American Academy of Periodontology, “This study really drives home the fact that even if you don’t smoke the effects of secondhand smoke can be devastating.” That statement was followed up by a caution from DMD Dr. Kenneth Mogell, “… secondhand smoke has effects well beyond what we might have thought!” And finally, as usual, a web page titled, “Secondhand Smoke Harms Children’s Health,” dragged the children in with a warning that “Periodontal disease [is] a leading cause of tooth loss…. No amount of secondhand smoke is safe for children. If you smoke, … quit. It’s important for your health and the health of your children.”

        Sounds pretty serious, right? Kind of makes you think that parents who smoke will end up raising herds of toothless young geezers who’ll be laughed at in school. And that’s exactly the image that was meant to be conveyed. But what the headlines and quotes artfully hide is that the study was done using highly concentrated clouds of smoke and that the “subjects” studied were actually thirty-six specially bred Wistar rats! Dr. Nogueira-Filo et al. published their research with the intimidating title of “Low- and High-Yield Cigarette Smoke Potentiates Bone Loss During Ligature Induced Periodontitis” Most newspaper readers and TV news viewers would never know the crucial facts: not only did the researchers study rats’ teeth instead of children’s teeth, but the rats were exposed to levels of smoke far beyond anything ever experienced by any child on the face of the earth.

        Basically, the rats were locked in a chamber measuring eight-tenths of a single cubic foot while the smoke from ten cigarettes was pumped through it. Eight minutes later, the half-suffocated animals would be dragged out, revived if necessary, and set aside to wait until their next visit to smoking hell. They got these treatments three times a day for a month and were then mercifully put out of their misery and dissected to determine whether any symptoms of damage to their gums could be detected. Oh, and to load the dice even more, the rats were initially given ligatures (wounds) around which the gums were valiantly trying to heal despite the repeated tortures of the antismoking scientists.

        How much smoke were they exposed to? Was it anything like what little Johnny and Janie might suffer while living with a smoking parent? Well, ten cigarettes in an eight-tenths cubic foot chamber would create the same concentration as a thousand cigarettes burned in a standard phone booth of about eighty cubic feet. The experiment basically modeled a situation in which you would take your child to a dentist for a particularly nasty dental procedure, one that required deep stitches in his or her gums, and then brought that child home to be locked in a phone booth three times a day while you blew the smoke from 1,000 cigarettes at a time through that booth. The study showed that if you did that for a whole month, their gums might not have healed quite as well as if you hadn’t done that – although that’s only necessarily true if your child is a specially bred Wistar rat.

        To bring it closer to the real world, say you lived in a two story home offering 1,000 square feet per floor and ten-foot-high ceilings. That home would have roughly 20,000 cubic feet of air space; the equivalent of 250 phone booths. So, to duplicate the conditions of the experiment, you’d need to sit down and smoke roughly three quarters of a million cigarettes a day while your little ones tried to watch the Teletubbies through the haze. And then, when you brought your sweet and somewhat desiccated little loves back to the dentist a month later, you’d find that maybe they weren’t doing quite as well as you’d expected.
        Refs (though the points of reference didn’t translate in the posting):

        Science Daily. “Secondhand Smoke Linked To Risk Of Tooth Loss,”, April 4, 2007.
        Mogell KA. “Periodontal Disease and secondhand smoke,”, June 5, 2007.
        Sims, J. “Secondhand Smoke Harms Children’s Health,”, December 13, 2010.,21375.
        MedlinePlus. “Secondhand Smoke,” National Institutes of Health,
        Nogueira-Filho G, Rosa BT, César-Neto JB, et al. “Low- and High-Yield Cigarette Smoke Inhalation Potentiates Bone Loss During Ligature-Induced Periodontitis,” Journal of Periodontology, April 2007, Volume 78, Number 4, pp. 730-735.

        – MJM, “toothless” old codger with 27 teeth left after 64 years of second AND firsthand smoke exposure…

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Mike those dipshitz took the age old claim that smokers get dry socket more often than nons. All they tell ya is no smoking for an hour after an extraction. Dry sockets are nearly always on top. Regardless if you smoke or not.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          2 years ago an endodontist cut my gum line from under my nose to the back jaw joint to expose the gumbone and did a thru the bone rootcanal. It heeled in 7 days when they took the stitches out. I smoked the whole time.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          BTW I nearly shot the bastard I was so pissed,he said he only had to cut it 1 inch. instead it was 4 inches and then left me lay there for 40 minutes while he was hands deep in another mouth before he stitched me up. I cussed yelled quack butcher and I had my gun on and he knew it after I flew off that chair it flung out from under my shirt. You SOB lying butcher you should be shot before you fuck somebody else up. I spit blood for 2 days,but it healed just fine. Needless to say it was one of the VAs list of preferred providers… other words a quack cheapass list.

  8. Frank Davis says:


    US Election 2016: Mitt Romney’s savage attack on ‘bully’ Donald Trump may backfire on Republican establishment

    “Think of Donald Trump’s personal qualities, the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third grade theatrics,” Mr Romney said. “We have long referred to him as “The Donald.” He’s the only person in America to whom we have added an article before his name. It wasn’t because he had attributes we admired.”

    While clearly speaking for a large number in the establishment wing of the party who fear that Mr Trump is taking so wide a lead in the nomination scramble, his barely restrained attacks will have backfired if they only infuriate and further galvanise his many millions of supporters. “If you’re Trump, this is like getting the good kind of Kryptonite,” Republican strategist Doug Heye said.

    Rush Limbaugh is reporting exactly this fury from listeners phoning in.

    And wasn’t it one of Trump’s former wives who first referred to him as The Donald?

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The Rinos of the party are so afraid this is what they’ve stooped to even telling gop voters to vote for Hillary if it comes down to it.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.