Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

This is the “spin”. Now for some questions. – politicalbetting.com

1234568»

Comments

  • The US was more successful than Canada probably because it had/has rather more propitious land.

    Canada’s economy was pretty much 100% fur-trading and lumber until late in the 19th century.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,028

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    OK, here is a question:

    Why are all screenwriters who work on Tolkien's oeuvre utterly incapable of understanding or even reading his texts?

    I really enjoyed the PJ movies myself. Thought they conveyed LOTR's themes well, despite not being completely faithful to the lore (I mean Tom Bombadil was never really going to work in a film trilogy, for example). And I certainly wasn't bored by them.
    Rings of Power, on the other hand...
    Not seen it yet, but my expectations are low enough that I'll probably enjoy it. The movies hold up well - watch them back to back with the Hobbit films and the difference in quality is stark.

    Being faithful should be low on the list of priorities for anyone adapting a work. You probably won't manage it, fanboys will moan even if you do based on their own interpretations, so best to use it as inspiration and add your own voice.
    I disapprove of some Amazon's lore changes... but that's mainly on the basis that (i) trying to compress about 2000 years of events into a few years is not a good idea, and (ii) changing Galadriel to be a revenge driven shieldmaiden is a backwards step and really shows the showrunners don't understand her character. She doesn't come across well at all in the show so far, IMHO.
    But to be honest, if Rings of Power wasn't a LOTR adaption and just a generic fantasy show I think a lot of people would still find it boring and uninteresting. At least based on the first two episodes I've seen.
    If we're comparing the two fantasy shows out right now, House of the Dragon is a much better series so far than Rings of Power.
    To paraphrase Dave Cameron, Everyone is entitled to a private life and hobbies before becoming stately Middle Earth Elf Queens and rulers of realms.

    After all, even Liz Truss was a Lib Dem swan-maiden just like her mother, Earwun of Alqualondë - which I think maybe near pontefract, though I havn’t been out in the westlands that often.

    It’s been a long week hasn’t it?
  • kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    You're utterly ridiculous.

    There is no way we could have kept India subjugated in the modern era and if we'd tried we would have been humiliated and had our rule overthrown by now.

    We are a top rank, G7 power, which is where we belong to be. We don't deserve, don't need and and shouldn't aspire to be a superpower.
    Which countries “deserve” to be a superpower?
    I predict you will regret asking this. But hats off for being willing.
    Superpower status is not really a moral question so “deserve” isn’t the right metric.

    But I’d argue a world in which the UK instead of PRC was a superpower would be a better place for all of us (except Winnie)
  • HYUFD said:

    The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.

    Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.

    Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
    America had no MPs at the time of independence, even had the colonists lost to the Crown it would likely have been given a few token MPs at most
    You don't seem to understand how evolution works over time and expect things to remain static in perpetuity which isn't what happens.

    Had America remained and acquired MPs then as we evolved into universal suffrage, that would have applied in America too.

    Universal suffrage would mean that we were by now a part of America not the other way around. It would have been a reverse takeover.
    Probably right.
    Although there might not be an “America”, but rather a number of States that would be peers of England.
    It become an interesting counterfactual though.

    Assume the Louisiana Purchase never happened. Does America ever expand beyond the Mississippi?

    If Wellington hadn’t declined the role of commander in North America (and if it was still such an important part of the Empire it would have been harder for him to do) would the Alliance have won at Waterloo?

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491

    HYUFD said:

    The only feasible alternative in which Britain “keeps” India is some form of Home Rule under a global, multi-ethnic federal body in which England and India (or perhaps Indian states) are effectively peers.

    Which would ultimately and inevitably democratically mean England would have been a part of India's Empire, not the other way around.

    Just as if America hadn't gone independent, we would not be ruling them still by now, if anything it would be the other way around.
    America had no MPs at the time of independence, even had the colonists lost to the Crown it would likely have been given a few token MPs at most
    You don't seem to understand how evolution works over time and expect things to remain static in perpetuity which isn't what happens.

    Had America remained and acquired MPs then as we evolved into universal suffrage, that would have applied in America too.

    Universal suffrage would mean that we were by now a part of America not the other way around. It would have been a reverse takeover.
    Probably right.
    Although there might not be an “America”, but rather a number of States that would be peers of England.
    It become an interesting counterfactual though.

    Assume the Louisiana Purchase never happened. Does America ever expand beyond the Mississippi?

    If Wellington hadn’t declined the role of commander in North America (and if it was still such an important part of the Empire it would have been harder for him to do) would the Alliance have won at Waterloo?

    I feel like it was a big gap in my education to not really know how the early USA transformed into the transcontinental behemoth it is today. Louisiana, wars with Mexico etc, I never really knew any of this stuff, I'd almost assume that colonies rebelled against Britain and then *poof* something happens and suddenly there are 50 states.
  • ydoethur said:

    OK, here is a question:

    Why are all screenwriters who work on Tolkien's oeuvre utterly incapable of understanding or even reading his texts?

    Follow up: did you actually have to watch Rings of Power to realise that?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,547
    edited September 2022

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    You're utterly ridiculous.

    There is no way we could have kept India subjugated in the modern era and if we'd tried we would have been humiliated and had our rule overthrown by now.

    We are a top rank, G7 power, which is where we belong to be. We don't deserve, don't need and and shouldn't aspire to be a superpower.
    Which countries “deserve” to be a superpower?
    I predict you will regret asking this. But hats off for being willing.
    Superpower status is not really a moral question so “deserve” isn’t the right metric.

    But I’d argue a world in which the UK instead of PRC was a superpower would be a better place for all of us (except Winnie)
    This is effectively my argument, too.

    I grew up in NZ. It was really rather good. By and large it was a product of British imperial policy.

    In my view, a UK (or, hah, a NZ) superpower would be much more congenial than a Chinese one, or even an American one.
  • Didn’t the Americans effectively rebel because they were too greedy to pay for their own Indian Wars?

    The no taxation without representation stuff was just some accompanying rhetorical bluster.

    Joe Biden has unexpectedly come out against the rebellion. So perhaps your Canada idea is redundant if we can take back the US.

    @POTUS
    You can’t be pro-insurrection and pro-America.


    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1565493507061698565
    I so hope someone has called him out on that!

  • TazTaz Posts: 6,568
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    The idiotic conservative leadership contest has closed and it is predicted Truss will win by 67% to 33%

    The damage that has been done to the party and Johnson's actions to the end should condemn it to opposition for years to come

    The question will be answered in 2024 about the time of our diamond wedding anniversary

    I can say with complete honesty that I do not want Starmer and labour in office, but if it happens then I accept it will be the verdict of the electorate and the conservative party will only have themselves to blame

    They also have only themselves to blame for getting rid of their most successful election winner since Thatcher, who even today matches Starmer in terms of favourables unlike Sunak and Truss with Mori
    They paved paradise and put up a parking lot?
    "Big Yellow Taxi there by Joni Mitchell, a song in which she complains that they 'paved paradise to put up a parking lot' - a measure which actually would have alleviated traffic congestion on the outskirts of paradise
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,914

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The UK’s decline down the international rankings is an unwelcome backdrop for the new prime minister, and comes in the final few days of Boris Johnson's time in power http://bloom.bg/3CRWG45 https://twitter.com/BloombergUK/status/1565702991876947968/photo/1

    Given India has over 20 times the UK population, the more surprising thing was that the UK ever had a bigger gdp than India.
    Is that largely down to the damage the British did to Indian industry during the Raj?
    India has been independent for over 70 years since Attlee gave it up.

    Even more astonishing was a small island off Europe ruled 1/3 of the globe for about a century and a half
    Worth noting that India's population has increased by more than a billion since India achieved independence.

    India was always more populous than the UK but by a factor of 6-7 not over 20.
    Either way had we kept India in the British Empire as Churchill wanted we would likely be still in the top 3 superpowers along with the US and China.

    Yes it may have been morally right for India to be given independence as Attlee wanted but Churchill was correct in that giving up our Empire would make us weaker on the world stage, we are now a middle ranking not a top rank power
    You're utterly ridiculous.

    There is no way we could have kept India subjugated in the modern era and if we'd tried we would have been humiliated and had our rule overthrown by now.

    We are a top rank, G7 power, which is where we belong to be. We don't deserve, don't need and and shouldn't aspire to be a superpower.
    Which countries “deserve” to be a superpower?
    I predict you will regret asking this. But hats off for being willing.
    Superpower status is not really a moral question so “deserve” isn’t the right metric.

    But I’d argue a world in which the UK instead of PRC was a superpower would be a better place for all of us (except Winnie)
    Except that to maintain our superpower status would have required us to become as bad as today's PRC.
This discussion has been closed.