placeholder

And actually, there was a lot of fluctuation leading up to the election. Out of the last 10 polls, 6 showed "leave" a ahead of "remain". 1 showed a tie. And only one pollster gave remain a 4 point margin https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/

I did a google search "Earthquake in Turkey" On the first page there were 2 headlines that didn't characterize the earthquake as being a Turkish and Syrian phenomenon.. And that's because they were focused on rescue efforts in Turkey. You've got nothing.

The great thing about ascribing motivation to actions is that such allegations can't be proved without a confession. What we do know is that there was an agreement. The UK seems poised to violate that agreement. Violating an agreement has consequences. If you want to turn it into a drama, go right ahead.

Guess what? The Trump administration has been defunct for over 2 years. It's a dubious assertion that the USA now has stronger ties with the UK. Not only was Biden against Brexit, but also very unhappy with what the Brits are attempting to do in relation to Northern Ireland.

Not surprised that you offer contrary to fact statements as some kind of proof. You might want to educate yourself about the validity of contrary to fact assertions: https://www.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.html

To reinforce your point here's what's called a poll of the polls before Brexit. Pro-Brexit got a lot stronger towards the end. https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/

Another mind reader. And apparently also an inhabitant of the meta-verse who can see alternate pasts. Remarkable.

The quake took place in 2 countries. And apparently was so strong in Syria that it wreaked enough destruction that it killed people. The headline should have included both countries. A subhead could have addressed the issue of the epicenter.

Did the earth quake in Syria or not?

I didn't say making amendments was touchy-feely. It was your stipulation re: goodwill. No amount of goodwill is going to get parties to amend an agreement unless both believe it will be in their respective interests to amend the agreement.

Actually, you do have a quarrel with me. Of course, it's possible. Political polling, which gets lambasted all the time, actually come quite close to predicting actual outcomes. Statistics couldn't be done in any useful way was it not valid to use small samples.

Why would the UK want to sell stuff to its largest market? Oh...wait a minute...

An agreement can be amended if both sides agree that it works to their mutual advantage. Let's keep the touchy-feely stuff out of this.

So, on the one hand you claim he's going to walk. On the other hand you claim that Romania doesn't afford suspects due process. So the way that they're not going to afford him due process is by letting him walk free?

What don't you understand about the fact that the UK signed an agreement with the EU obligating it to abide by certain rules?

Isn't Jim Jordan the guy who tried to cover up a sex scandal? I'll give you a hint: the answer is "yes".

The only lack of logic I see on display here is yours. The EU and the UK have signed an agreement. If the UK violates that ingredient, then the EU has every right not to subscribe to their side of the of the bargain. What is so difficult to understand about that?

I think you should take up your quarrel with mathematicians and tell them what they're getting wrong.

There's so much wrong here it's hard to know where to begin or end. But consider this: what evidentiary value does a poll consisting of one person have? To follow your line of thinking, apparently some. This is mathematically ridiculous.

Still don't get it? It will not be deemed fictitious. It will be deemed unconfirmable. What's more, even if his personal experience could be confirmed, so what? You think one person's report, even if this person were completely unbiased (is there such a person?) would have any value as data? I have yet to see any studies with titles along the lines of "What Transam Saw Of The Poor Last Time He Was In Blighty"

Being invisible, nothing can't be seen.

Once again, you've got nothing.

Are anyone's personal reports in this forum verifiable? Do anyone's unverifiable reports in this forum have any evidentiary value?

Whatever the merits of your comment about Trump's appeal to the Russians, would you also say he was joking when he said he believed Putin even though American intelligence agencies said differently? And he held a private meeting with Putin with the only other person from his team being a translator? President Trump went to 'extraordinary lengths' to hide details of Putin meetings, report says President Donald Trump went to "extraordinary lengths" to keep details from his conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin secret – even from officials within his own administration, The Washington Post reported this weekend, citing unnamed sources. After meeting with Putin at the 2017 Group of 20summit in Hamburg, Germany, Trump took his interpreter's notes and told him not to discuss the meeting with anyone, including other U.S. officials, the Post reported. The paper said Trump's handling of the Hamburg meeting was "part of a broader pattern by the president of shielding his communications with Putin from public scrutiny and preventing even high-ranking officials in his own administration from fully knowing what he has told one of the United States’ main adversaries." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/13/trump-putin-meetings-interpreter-notes/2565471002/

I certainly didn't call you a liar. But that you see it that way just reinforces the accuracy of my observation.