Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Betting now on Trump for the WH2024 GOP nomination seems crazy – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,753
edited January 2023 in General
imageBetting now on Trump for the WH2024 GOP nomination seems crazy – politicalbetting.com

One of the moderately busy political betting markets at the moment is on who will win the Republican nomination for the 2024 White House Race. Currently ex-President Donald Trump tops of polls and also the betting where he’s rated as a 30% chance.

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 21,039
    Merry Christmas PB.

    Hope you've all had a lovely day :)
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,578
    But ... the power of celebrity.

    People underrated him before 2016, and I imagine they don't want to make the same mistake again.

    He also might well have won in 2020 had a microbe in China not mutated and found a human host.
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,578
    FTP:
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,184
    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.


  • Options
    WillG said:

    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.


    - “… attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.”

    Sunak, take note.
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,569
    "Venona has added significant information to the case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, making it clear Julius was guilty of espionage, and also showing that Ethel, while not acting as a principal, still acted as an accessory, who took part in Julius's espionage activity and played a role in the recruitment of her brother for atomic espionage.[42]

    Venona and other recent information has shown, while the content of Julius' atomic espionage was not as vital to the Soviets as alleged at the time of his espionage activities, in other fields it was extensive. The information Rosenberg passed to the Soviets concerned the proximity fuze, design and production information on the Lockheed P-80 jet fighter, and thousands of classified reports from Emerson Radio."
    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project

    I thought everyone knew that. Well, almost everyone.

    (Incidentally, the proximity fuze was so secret that it was not used over land, until the Battle of the Bulge.)
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,569
    I agree with Our Gracious Host. As I have said before, Trump's chances at winning the Republican nomination are less than 30 percent.

    And that's true even though the Republican rules, giving all the delegates to a plurality winners in many (all?) states give Trump a big advantage.
  • Options
    WillGWillG Posts: 2,184

    WillG said:

    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.


    - “… attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.”

    Sunak, take note.
    It was unwarrantable jurisdiction as there was zero representation of the American colonies in that legislature.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,409

    I agree with Our Gracious Host. As I have said before, Trump's chances at winning the Republican nomination are less than 30 percent.

    And that's true even though the Republican rules, giving all the delegates to a plurality winners in many (all?) states give Trump a big advantage.

    Different states have different rules for the Republicans.

    And this means there's a mishmash of winner takes all (Ohio, Florida, Arizona), winner takes most (Wisconsin, Illinois), and various other not quite proportional systems in place.
  • Options
    Lying awake from 6am this morning.

    My body is still struggling to process the massive Christmas lunch I ate at 2pm yesterday afternoon.
  • Options
    WillG said:

    WillG said:

    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.


    - “… attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.”

    Sunak, take note.
    It was unwarrantable jurisdiction as there was zero representation of the American colonies in that legislature.
    It is unwarrantable jurisdiction to pass legislation reserving constitutional matters to a foreign legislature.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,409

    WillG said:

    WillG said:

    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.


    - “… attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.”

    Sunak, take note.
    It was unwarrantable jurisdiction as there was zero representation of the American colonies in that legislature.
    It is unwarrantable jurisdiction to pass legislation reserving constitutional matters to a foreign legislature.
    Define "foreign"?

    I ask, because I seen to remember that the Scottish legislature passed an Act of Union back in 1707.
  • Options
    Foreign: of, from, in, or characteristic of a country other than one's own.

    The Treaty of Union of 1706 was an international agreement between two sovereign states, the articles of which have been trashed so thoroughly as to make the document invalid. The final blow was dealt by the Labour Party who actually enshrined English hegemony in law in 1998.

    That qualifies as unwarrantable jurisdiction.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860

    WillG said:

    WillG said:

    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.


    - “… attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.”

    Sunak, take note.
    It was unwarrantable jurisdiction as there was zero representation of the American colonies in that legislature.
    It is unwarrantable jurisdiction to pass legislation reserving constitutional matters to a foreign legislature.
    So you agree with leaving the EU?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860
    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    Treason doth never prosper - why, what’s the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.

    It is amusing though to watch Americans twist and turn over eviscerating Lee and lionising George Washington, because Lee may have freed his slaves, and been a much better general, and won most of his battles, but he was a traitor, unlike Washington apparently…
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702
    edited December 2022
    On the contrary, the long shot bet that has been worth taking for some time now is laying Trump for the nomination and next presidency . It is hard to see how things improve for him from here, and his near-insanity makes it less likely that whoever emerges as the nominee actually wins the election. The odds on laying the nomination are obvs better than for next Pres, but spreading the lay between the two provides a bit of a hedge in case the Reps really are stupid enough to put him up again.
  • Options

    WillG said:

    WillG said:

    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.


    - “… attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.”

    Sunak, take note.
    It was unwarrantable jurisdiction as there was zero representation of the American colonies in that legislature.
    It is unwarrantable jurisdiction to pass legislation reserving constitutional matters to a foreign legislature.
    The Union has strengthened Scotland's culture and influence, not weakened it.

    Without the Union Scotland would have remained an impoverished irrelevance throughout the 18th and 19th Centuries, as Darien demonstrated, whereas with it Scotland and Scots helped build the world and made huge contributions in the fields of economics, engineering and science.

    Scotland's culture, traditions and heritage were strengthened, stabilised and then hugely amplified to a global audience as a result of the Union, an effect which it continues to benefit from today, and resentment at the fact that could only be achieved in partnership with England (which is what this is really about) should not blind you to it, nor the consequences of ending that partnership.

  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860

    WillG said:

    WillG said:

    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.


    - “… attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.”

    Sunak, take note.
    It was unwarrantable jurisdiction as there was zero representation of the American colonies in that legislature.
    It is unwarrantable jurisdiction to pass legislation reserving constitutional matters to a foreign legislature.
    The Union has strengthened Scotland's culture and influence, not weakened it.

    Without the Union Scotland would have remained an impoverished irrelevance throughout the 18th and 19th Centuries, as Darien demonstrated, whereas with it Scotland and Scots helped build the world and made huge contributions in the fields of economics, engineering and science.

    Scotland's culture, traditions and heritage were strengthened, stabilised and then hugely amplified to a global audience as a result of the Union, an effect which it continues to benefit from today, and resentment at the fact that could only be achieved in partnership with England (which is what this is really about) should not blind you to it, nor the consequences of ending that partnership.

    So you think we should have stayed in the EU?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860
    Low demand (presumably as everyone has a lie-in) and a good sturdy breeze have between them pushed wind generation to 58% of demand this morning, even though we're exporting quite a lot.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702
    edited December 2022
    ydoethur said:

    Low demand (presumably as everyone has a lie-in) and a good sturdy breeze have between them pushed wind generation to 58% of demand this morning, even though we're exporting quite a lot.

    Here on the island the sun is coming up into a partly blue and mostly still sky. Someone else must have the wind we often get, today.

    Latest sunrise of the year falls next weekend, I believe.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860
    I've trolled Nats, Leavers and the entire United States this morning. By pointing out the logical inconsistencies in their arguments.

    Where do I go from here? Anyone got anything good on the Chinese?
  • Options
    Good morning, everyone.

    My. Doethur, I voted to Leave as I think, sadly, the EU will break up and the later it occurs the greater the pain that will be caused. Not sure I see the inconsistency there.
  • Options
    pingping Posts: 3,748
    edited December 2022
    Today program almost unlistenable, this morning.

    “Guest edited” by Ian Botham. They’ve gone rather over the top on the cricket stuff.

    Thought for the day was just embarrassing, inserting a completely inappropriate reference to Botham’s charity work.

    What kind of editor does that?

    He comes across as a complete prick, yet gets treated with an absurd reverence throughout the program.

    The vast majority of R4 listeners are either ambivalent towards, or actively hate the game. The BBC have got this wrong.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702
    edited December 2022

    Good morning, everyone.

    My. Doethur, I voted to Leave as I think, sadly, the EU will break up and the later it occurs the greater the pain that will be caused. Not sure I see the inconsistency there.

    This wet dream of leavers has been around for a long time and shows little sign of coming to pass; Brexit had the opposite effect and wasn’t the first domino that Farage expected. Even if it comes to pass, we would be badly affected by such a collapse, whether in or out. So that reason for voting leave fails on logical grounds.

    Incidentally, so sure were some leavers that Brexit would lead to others leaving that Betfair ran a “next country to invoke article 50” market, and my long timeframe bets on “none before 2023” are days away from paying off. I did flag this betting opportunity way back at the time; I got on at 1.55 in 2019.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860
    ping said:

    Today program almost unlistenable, this morning.

    “Guest edited” by Ian Botham. They’ve gone rather over the top on the cricket stuff.

    Thought for the day was just embarrassing, inserting a completely inappropriate reference to Botham’s charity work.

    What kind of editor does that?

    He comes across as a complete prick, yet gets treated with an absurd reverence throughout the program.

    The vast majority of R4 listeners are either ambivalent towards, or actively hate the game. The BBC have got this wrong.

    As I recall he already demonstrated he was a complete prick in bowling his last ball in first class cricket.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860

    Good morning, everyone.

    My. Doethur, I voted to Leave as I think, sadly, the EU will break up and the later it occurs the greater the pain that will be caused. Not sure I see the inconsistency there.

    Depends. Do you think Scotland should become independent for the same reason?
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702
    ping said:

    Today program almost unlistenable, this morning.

    “Guest edited” by Ian Botham. They’ve gone rather over the top on the cricket stuff.

    Thought for the day was just embarrassing, inserting a completely inappropriate reference to Botham’s charity work.

    What kind of editor does that?

    He comes across as a complete prick, yet gets treated with an absurd reverence throughout the program.

    The vast majority of R4 listeners are either ambivalent towards, or actively hate the game. The BBC have got this wrong.

    I suspect the vast majority of R4 listeners are either ambivalent towards, or actively hate, Thought for the Day, yet we have to endure it every day, all this “I saw a plastic bag blowing down the street, and it made me think of Jesus” rubbish. Over the years I have become quite regular in going for a s*** at ten to eight every morning.
  • Options
    Mr. B2, *sighs*.

    Your strawman attack demeans you.

    If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.

    I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.

    It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.

    The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,193
    Why is Pence 8%? He should be 0%. He probably has a constituency among Mid West types who think the Handmaid's Tale is an instructional video but he's the Anti-MAGA. He has no viable route to the nomination even if DJT had a massive gripper while trying to push out his Boxing Day shit.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702

    Mr. B2, *sighs*.

    Your strawman attack demeans you.

    If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.

    I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.

    It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.

    The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.

    But that’s an assertion without much evidence.

    First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    No, it's not, in the slightest.

    While one can argue the historical pros and cons, if we're saying we can judge nations by what they did in the eighteenth century, we look pretty piss poor, too.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,681
    Nigelb said:

    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    No, it's not, in the slightest.

    While one can argue the historical pros and cons, if we're saying we can judge nations by what they did in the eighteenth century, we look pretty piss poor, too.
    Oh come on, the 18th C wasn’t all bad. We did invent cricket about then, after all…
  • Options
    Mr. B2, that's possible. But has that been the truth in Europe which has identities dating back centuries?

    I have a line of reasoning that is plausible (though whether true or not time will tell). Evidence for the future is a little difficult to present due to the direction in which time flows.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    Treason doth never prosper - why, what’s the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.

    It is amusing though to watch Americans twist and turn over eviscerating Lee and lionising George Washington, because Lee may have freed his slaves, and been a much better general, and won most of his battles, but he was a traitor, unlike Washington apparently…
    Let's not lionise Lee.
    The man was wedded to the system of slavery.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860
    IanB2 said:

    Mr. B2, *sighs*.

    Your strawman attack demeans you.

    If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.

    I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.

    It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.

    The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.

    But that’s an assertion without much evidence.

    First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
    One of the reasons Lee did not see himself as a traitor for resigning from the US Army and joining the Army of Northern Virginia was because he saw himself as a Virginian, describing it as 'my country' ('I cannot and do not, see the good of secession but I will not lift a hand against my wife, my family and my country').
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    Treason doth never prosper - why, what’s the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.

    It is amusing though to watch Americans twist and turn over eviscerating Lee and lionising George Washington, because Lee may have freed his slaves, and been a much better general, and won most of his battles, but he was a traitor, unlike Washington apparently…
    Let's not lionise Lee.
    The man was wedded to the system of slavery.
    You don't need to lionise him to point out that every criticism made of Lee could be made of Washington.

    And it's a simple statement of fact to say he was a much better battlefield general.

    Just as you don't need to lionise Nazi Germany to think Rommel was actually a better general than most Allied commanders including Montgomery.
  • Options
    ydoethur said:

    WillG said:

    WillG said:

    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.


    - “… attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.”

    Sunak, take note.
    It was unwarrantable jurisdiction as there was zero representation of the American colonies in that legislature.
    It is unwarrantable jurisdiction to pass legislation reserving constitutional matters to a foreign legislature.
    The Union has strengthened Scotland's culture and influence, not weakened it.

    Without the Union Scotland would have remained an impoverished irrelevance throughout the 18th and 19th Centuries, as Darien demonstrated, whereas with it Scotland and Scots helped build the world and made huge contributions in the fields of economics, engineering and science.

    Scotland's culture, traditions and heritage were strengthened, stabilised and then hugely amplified to a global audience as a result of the Union, an effect which it continues to benefit from today, and resentment at the fact that could only be achieved in partnership with England (which is what this is really about) should not blind you to it, nor the consequences of ending that partnership.

    So you think we should have stayed in the EU?
    An extremely different comparison.

    For a start, while England and Scotland were different countries, they had one monarch. In an age when monarchical rule was still generally accepted, and the powers of Parliament still limited to some degree, a Union of the Crowns already meant England and Scotland were 'integrated' to some degree. The EU, on the other hand, was an artificial creation in that it brought together sovereign independent states with their own laws etc into a Treaty, which was then developed further.

    If you want a better comparison of Scotland leaving the U.K., it's not the U.K. leaving the EU but Ireland's split in 1921/2. It's a far better comparison (and a far better analogy when it comes to looking at the pluses and minuses).


  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702

    Mr. B2, that's possible. But has that been the truth in Europe which has identities dating back centuries?

    I have a line of reasoning that is plausible (though whether true or not time will tell). Evidence for the future is a little difficult to present due to the direction in which time flows.

    Yes, but the irony buried within your argument is that the indirect nature of most democracy within the EU arises from national governments hanging onto their powers to appoint the commission and to act through the council of ministers. The brake on greater direct democracy arises from nationalism rather than Europeanism.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    edited December 2022
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. B2, *sighs*.

    Your strawman attack demeans you.

    If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.

    I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.

    It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.

    The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.

    But that’s an assertion without much evidence.

    First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
    One of the reasons Lee did not see himself as a traitor for resigning from the US Army and joining the Army of Northern Virginia was because he saw himself as a Virginian, describing it as 'my country' ('I cannot and do not, see the good of secession but I will not lift a hand against my wife, my family and my country').
    He was a scrub.
    The Confederacy was founded and dedicated to the preservation of slavery, the openly declared cause if the South.
    All the talk of honour and states rights was a load of bunk.

    And that is judging him by the standards of his time, too.
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,681
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    Treason doth never prosper - why, what’s the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.

    It is amusing though to watch Americans twist and turn over eviscerating Lee and lionising George Washington, because Lee may have freed his slaves, and been a much better general, and won most of his battles, but he was a traitor, unlike Washington apparently…
    Let's not lionise Lee.
    The man was wedded to the system of slavery.
    You don't need to lionise him to point out that every criticism made of Lee could be made of Washington.

    And it's a simple statement of fact to say he was a much better battlefield general.

    Just as you don't need to lionise Nazi Germany to think Rommel was actually a better general than most Allied commanders including Montgomery.
    Was Rommel that good? He prospered in France in 1940 against an enemy that had no stomach for the fight and with the new Blitzkreig tactics. He never fought in Russia. He prospered in a sideshow in North Africa until the allies found a decent general who was given enough material to win. He lost in France, albeit overwhelmed by US industrial might.
    He was by repute a decent man, as were many German soldiers, but not all. Was he better than Monty? Monty was fighting a different war - one with unlimited material, but limited men, and so his battles were fought differently. Arguably Monty only lost one battle, Arnhem, whereas Rommel lost most of his.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    The major Russian shipyard Admiralty Shipyards that specialises in building non-nuclear submarines said its general director Alexander Buzakov had died suddenly on Dec 24 after 11 years in the job, but gave no details.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1607164538268303360
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,214
    Nigelb said:

    The major Russian shipyard Admiralty Shipyards that specialises in building non-nuclear submarines said its general director Alexander Buzakov had died suddenly on Dec 24 after 11 years in the job, but gave no details.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1607164538268303360

    Was he stood near a window?
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    Treason doth never prosper - why, what’s the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.

    It is amusing though to watch Americans twist and turn over eviscerating Lee and lionising George Washington, because Lee may have freed his slaves, and been a much better general, and won most of his battles, but he was a traitor, unlike Washington apparently…
    Let's not lionise Lee.
    The man was wedded to the system of slavery.
    You don't need to lionise him to point out that every criticism made of Lee could be made of Washington.

    And it's a simple statement of fact to say he was a much better battlefield general.

    Just as you don't need to lionise Nazi Germany to think Rommel was actually a better general than most Allied commanders including Montgomery.
    Was Rommel that good? He prospered in France in 1940 against an enemy that had no stomach for the fight and with the new Blitzkreig tactics. He never fought in Russia. He prospered in a sideshow in North Africa until the allies found a decent general who was given enough material to win. He lost in France, albeit overwhelmed by US industrial might.
    He was by repute a decent man, as were many German soldiers, but not all. Was he better than Monty? Monty was fighting a different war - one with unlimited material, but limited men, and so his battles were fought differently. Arguably Monty only lost one battle, Arnhem, whereas Rommel lost most of his.
    He did some brilliant stuff in the First World War, as a more junior officer. I stumbled onto one of his battlefields whilst walking the dog in the Slovenian mountains this spring.
  • Options
    Mr. B2, that may be ironic but it acknowledges rather than refutes my line of thinking regarding a disparity in democratic accountability and power (currently).
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    Treason doth never prosper - why, what’s the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.

    It is amusing though to watch Americans twist and turn over eviscerating Lee and lionising George Washington, because Lee may have freed his slaves, and been a much better general, and won most of his battles, but he was a traitor, unlike Washington apparently…
    Let's not lionise Lee.
    The man was wedded to the system of slavery.
    You don't need to lionise him to point out that every criticism made of Lee could be made of Washington.

    And it's a simple statement of fact to say he was a much better battlefield general.

    Just as you don't need to lionise Nazi Germany to think Rommel was actually a better general than most Allied commanders including Montgomery.
    Was Rommel that good? He prospered in France in 1940 against an enemy that had no stomach for the fight and with the new Blitzkreig tactics. He never fought in Russia. He prospered in a sideshow in North Africa until the allies found a decent general who was given enough material to win. He lost in France, albeit overwhelmed by US industrial might.
    He was by repute a decent man, as were many German soldiers, but not all. Was he better than Monty? Monty was fighting a different war - one with unlimited material, but limited men, and so his battles were fought differently. Arguably Monty only lost one battle, Arnhem, whereas Rommel lost most of his.
    Rommel was mostly constrained by the shortages of material, especially oil, which hampered him enormously.

    And although Wavell was blamed for the reverses, Wavell was actually a very capable General who could probably have captured Libya and Algeria in 1941 if some prat, think he was called Churchill, hadn't sent most of his forces to fight a hopeless battle in Crete. There was nothing inevitable about Rommel's victories.

    Montgomery, admittedly, also had such shortages, but they were less acute. He was a rather reckless General who often gambled on inadequate intelligence and was profligate with the lives of his men in poorly thought through and often ineffectual campaigns. Arnhem was the largest and most spectacular of them but you could see it in much of the Alamein campaign too, disguised in overall success - his bungled handling of 9th Armoured Brigade springs to mind, although the disaster was rather missed in the overwhelming relief that the British had finally won a battle.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,277
    IanB2 said:

    Mr. B2, *sighs*.

    Your strawman attack demeans you.

    If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.

    I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.

    It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.

    The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.

    But that’s an assertion without much evidence.

    First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
    It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,089
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. B2, *sighs*.

    Your strawman attack demeans you.

    If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.

    I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.

    It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.

    The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.

    But that’s an assertion without much evidence.

    First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
    One of the reasons Lee did not see himself as a traitor for resigning from the US Army and joining the Army of Northern Virginia was because he saw himself as a Virginian, describing it as 'my country' ('I cannot and do not, see the good of secession but I will not lift a hand against my wife, my family and my country').
    He was a scrub.
    The Confederacy was founded and dedicated to the preservation of slavery, the openly declared cause if the South.
    All the talk of honour and states rights was a load
    of bunk.
    And that is judging him by the standards of his
    time, too.
    Lee should have swung, along with Jefferson Davis.

    The difference between Washington and Lee is clear.

    Washington succeeded, while Lee failed.



  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    Treason doth never prosper - why, what’s the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.

    It is amusing though to watch Americans twist and turn over eviscerating Lee and lionising George Washington, because Lee may have freed his slaves, and been a much better general, and won most of his battles, but he was a traitor, unlike Washington apparently…
    Let's not lionise Lee.
    The man was wedded to the system of slavery.
    You don't need to lionise him to point out that every criticism made of Lee could be made of Washington.

    And it's a simple statement of fact to say he was a much better battlefield general.

    Just as you don't need to lionise Nazi Germany to think Rommel was actually a better general than most Allied commanders including Montgomery.
    Washington was distinguished by making no disastrous mistakes - in particular by limiting himself to two presidential terms.
    The excessive respect in which his memory is held has, in balance, served the US quite well.

    As far as his military capabilities are concerned, he won. That's about it.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    Treason doth never prosper - why, what’s the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.

    It is amusing though to watch Americans twist and turn over eviscerating Lee and lionising George Washington, because Lee may have freed his slaves, and been a much better general, and won most of his battles, but he was a traitor, unlike Washington apparently…
    Let's not lionise Lee.
    The man was wedded to the system of slavery.
    You don't need to lionise him to point out that every criticism made of Lee could be made of Washington.

    And it's a simple statement of fact to say he was a much better battlefield general.

    Just as you don't need to lionise Nazi Germany to think Rommel was actually a better general than most Allied commanders including Montgomery.
    Washington was distinguished by making no disastrous mistakes - in particular by limiting himself to two presidential terms.
    The excessive respect in which his memory is held has, in balance, served the US quite well.

    As far as his military capabilities are concerned, he won. That's about it.
    Countries need heroes and a narrative, especially a young country like the US back then. As in the comments above both Washington’s and Churchill’s many mistakes tend to have been forgotten.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    Sean_F said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. B2, *sighs*.

    Your strawman attack demeans you.

    If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.

    I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.

    It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.

    The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.

    But that’s an assertion without much evidence.

    First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
    One of the reasons Lee did not see himself as a traitor for resigning from the US Army and joining the Army of Northern Virginia was because he saw himself as a Virginian, describing it as 'my country' ('I cannot and do not, see the good of secession but I will not lift a hand against my wife, my family and my country').
    He was a scrub.
    The Confederacy was founded and dedicated to the preservation of slavery, the openly declared cause if the South.
    All the talk of honour and states rights was a load
    of bunk.
    And that is judging him by the standards of his
    time, too.
    Lee should have swung, along with Jefferson Davis...

    That would hardly have served to "bind up the wounds".
    The immediate resolution to the Civil War was probably as good as it could have been in the circumstances. It's what came later that was the disaster.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. B2, *sighs*.

    Your strawman attack demeans you.

    If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.

    I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.

    It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.

    The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.

    But that’s an assertion without much evidence.

    First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
    One of the reasons Lee did not see himself as a traitor for resigning from the US Army and joining the Army of Northern Virginia was because he saw himself as a Virginian, describing it as 'my country' ('I cannot and do not, see the good of secession but I will not lift a hand against my wife, my family and my country').
    He was a scrub.
    The Confederacy was founded and dedicated to the preservation of slavery, the openly declared cause if the South.
    All the talk of honour and states rights was a load
    of bunk.
    And that is judging him by the standards of his
    time, too.
    Lee should have swung, along with Jefferson Davis.

    The difference between Washington and Lee is clear.

    Washington succeeded, while Lee failed.



    Should Washington have swung though had the British prevailed?

    Personally, I don't think so.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,458

    Foreign: of, from, in, or characteristic of a country other than one's own.

    The Treaty of Union of 1706 was an international agreement between two sovereign states, the articles of which have been trashed so thoroughly as to make the document invalid. The final blow was dealt by the Labour Party who actually enshrined English hegemony in law in 1998.

    That qualifies as unwarrantable jurisdiction.

    Scotland is not a sovereign nation, it is part of the United Kingdom and as the Supreme Court confirmed only Westminster has Supreme Power over all 4 home nations
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,458
    edited December 2022
    Pence in 3rd will focus on Iowa, the first caucus and leave Trump and DeSantis to bash each other to bits
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860

    Nigelb said:

    The major Russian shipyard Admiralty Shipyards that specialises in building non-nuclear submarines said its general director Alexander Buzakov had died suddenly on Dec 24 after 11 years in the job, but gave no details.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1607164538268303360

    Was he stood near a window?
    It's an open and shut case.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860
    HYUFD said:

    Foreign: of, from, in, or characteristic of a country other than one's own.

    The Treaty of Union of 1706 was an international agreement between two sovereign states, the articles of which have been trashed so thoroughly as to make the document invalid. The final blow was dealt by the Labour Party who actually enshrined English hegemony in law in 1998.

    That qualifies as unwarrantable jurisdiction.

    Scotland is not a sovereign nation, it is part of the United Kingdom and as the Supreme Court confirmed only Westminster has Supreme Power over all 4 home nations
    Oh good grief...sorry for setting him off, everyone.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    edited December 2022
    HYUFD said:

    Pence in 3rd will focus on Iowa, the first caucus and leave Trump and DeSantis to bash each other to bits

    For all the good it will do him.
    DuraAce's analysis is correct.

    As is, of course, Mike's header.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. B2, *sighs*.

    Your strawman attack demeans you.

    If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.

    I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.

    It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.

    The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.

    But that’s an assertion without much evidence.

    First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
    It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
    It's certainly possible to feel multiple affinities- see Town Halls on the continent flying five or so different flags. But something, I don't know what, makes it harder for people of the United Kingdom (especially Great Britain) to do the same.

    There's an anxiety that adding wider (Europe) or narrower (Scotland, Yorkshire) identities will weaken the existing British one.

    It's a shame. Partly because multiple flags make the world more colourful, but also because I suspect it means the country is less well-run than it could be.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,458
    edited December 2022

    Sean_F said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. B2, *sighs*.

    Your strawman attack demeans you.

    If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.

    I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.

    It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.

    The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.

    But that’s an assertion without much evidence.

    First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
    One of the reasons Lee did not see himself as a traitor for resigning from the US Army and joining the Army of Northern Virginia was because he saw himself as a Virginian, describing it as 'my country' ('I cannot and do not, see the good of secession but I will not lift a hand against my wife, my family and my country').
    He was a scrub.
    The Confederacy was founded and dedicated to the preservation of slavery, the openly declared cause if the South.
    All the talk of honour and states rights was a load
    of bunk.
    And that is judging him by the standards of his
    time, too.
    Lee should have swung, along with Jefferson Davis.

    The difference between Washington and Lee is clear.

    Washington succeeded, while Lee failed.



    Should Washington have swung though had the British prevailed?

    Personally, I don't think so.
    Washington was a traitor to King George III in British terms, he would at least have been punished.

    Lee lost lands and the right to vote
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,860
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    Treason doth never prosper - why, what’s the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.

    It is amusing though to watch Americans twist and turn over eviscerating Lee and lionising George Washington, because Lee may have freed his slaves, and been a much better general, and won most of his battles, but he was a traitor, unlike Washington apparently…
    Let's not lionise Lee.
    The man was wedded to the system of slavery.
    You don't need to lionise him to point out that every criticism made of Lee could be made of Washington.

    And it's a simple statement of fact to say he was a much better battlefield general.

    Just as you don't need to lionise Nazi Germany to think Rommel was actually a better general than most Allied commanders including Montgomery.
    Washington was distinguished by making no disastrous mistakes - in particular by limiting himself to two presidential terms.
    The excessive respect in which his memory is held has, in balance, served the US quite well.

    As far as his military capabilities are concerned, he won. That's about it.
    He was on the winning side.

    Which is not quite the same thing.

    As with traitors, ultimately successful generals, even bad ones, tend to get a free pass on the rubbish. Frederick the Great of Prussia, for example.

    An interesting exception is Douglas Haig.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702
    edited December 2022
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. B2, *sighs*.

    Your strawman attack demeans you.

    If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.

    I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.

    It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.

    The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.

    But that’s an assertion without much evidence.

    First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
    It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
    Throughout most of its history you would surmise that if there was a challenge to American unity it would come from divisions along geographical or racial lines. The morning ritual in schools and all the flag-and-veterans stuff originates from the intention of forging a national identity as Americans that would become stronger than residual loyalties to state and racial/national origin.

    Yet American unity is at threat like never before, but not (primarily) from geography or race but from culture and socio-economics.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. B2, *sighs*.

    Your strawman attack demeans you.

    If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.

    I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.

    It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.

    The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.

    But that’s an assertion without much evidence.

    First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
    One of the reasons Lee did not see himself as a traitor for resigning from the US Army and joining the Army of Northern Virginia was because he saw himself as a Virginian, describing it as 'my country' ('I cannot and do not, see the good of secession but I will not lift a hand against my wife, my family and my country').
    He was a scrub.
    The Confederacy was founded and dedicated to the preservation of slavery, the openly declared cause if the South.
    All the talk of honour and states rights was a load
    of bunk.
    And that is judging him by the standards of his
    time, too.
    Lee should have swung, along with Jefferson Davis.

    The difference between Washington and Lee is clear.

    Washington succeeded, while Lee failed.



    Should Washington have swung though had the British prevailed?

    Personally, I don't think so.
    Washington was a traitor to King George III in British terms, he would at least have been punished.

    Lee lost lands and the right to vote
    He was but with so many Americans taking up arms an enduring political settlement would need to take precedent.

    You can only really hold victors justice if your enemies are utterly routed with little sympathy for them in the wider populace. Otherwise, you just create martyrs.
  • Options

    Good morning, everyone.

    My. Doethur, I voted to Leave as I think, sadly, the EU will break up and the later it occurs the greater the pain that will be caused. Not sure I see the inconsistency there.

    I hope you’ve warned those silly, naive Ukrainians.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,458
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. B2, *sighs*.

    Your strawman attack demeans you.

    If the EU collapses it'll be disastrous as the good scenario in that event would be widespread civil disturbance. Not to mention the chance of a trade or actual war and the breakdown of multi-lateral co-operation.

    I never thought the EU would fall over if we left, quite the reverse. My concern is that when something ends the consequences grow more dire the deeper the integration. If you and I have an argument now, a bitter and serious one, perhaps we don't ever respond to one another on PB any more. That is not a serious consequence. If you and I fall in love, get married, live together, have children, get a dog *and then* have a terminal breakdown in our relationship the negative consequences are infinitely more profound.

    It's why I have more respect for Verhofstadt than might be assumed given we're on opposite sides of the aisle when it comes to the EU. He at least recognises that there's a danger in power without democracy and the only possibly way the EU can progress (short of a looser association which sadly seems impossible) is to integrate more but in a political manner so the citizens of the EU can actually have some electoral power to match the political responsibility the bloc has drawn to itself that had hitherto been the preserve of the nation-states that comprise the organisation.

    The problem is that national identities are not so easily wiped out (look at Scotland, Yorkshire, Cornwall). When political integration has been completed but some are constantly in a minority or feel they're being ridden over roughshod, the penalties for leaving become ever higher. But if there's no alternative, that will happen. The one-size-fits-all model will, I fear lead to a catastrophic breakdown.

    But that’s an assertion without much evidence.

    First-time visitors to the US are often struck by the strength of state loyalties - particularly as Americans seem to move around so much - but there they are, and back in history there was a time when they were stronger than US identity.
    It is perfectly possible to feel two affinities or indeed more. I think it very likely that the EU will outlive the UK. There is no reason for for the EU to break up. Indeed in the not too distant future I think that the entire continent will be in the EU or at least part of its Single Market, including us.
    The EU already has broken up post Brexit.

    The UK was an even bigger percentage of the EU population and economy than Scotland and Northern Ireland combined are of the UK population and economy
  • Options
    ping said:

    Today program almost unlistenable, this morning.

    “Guest edited” by Ian Botham. They’ve gone rather over the top on the cricket stuff.

    Thought for the day was just embarrassing, inserting a completely inappropriate reference to Botham’s charity work.

    What kind of editor does that?

    He comes across as a complete prick, yet gets treated with an absurd reverence throughout the program.

    The vast majority of R4 listeners are either ambivalent towards, or actively hate the game. The BBC have got this wrong.

    He still seems greatly attached to the idea that UK = England which is great as long as he takes that to its ultimate conclusion.
  • Options
    Mr. Divvie, you do understand that the United Kingdom and Ukraine are in rather different positions, yes?
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,472
    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    Treason doth never prosper - why, what’s the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.

    It is amusing though to watch Americans twist and turn over eviscerating Lee and lionising George Washington, because Lee may have freed his slaves, and been a much better general, and won most of his battles, but he was a traitor, unlike Washington apparently…
    Let's not lionise Lee.
    The man was wedded to the system of slavery.
    You don't need to lionise him to point out that every criticism made of Lee could be made of Washington.

    And it's a simple statement of fact to say he was a much better battlefield general.

    Just as you don't need to lionise Nazi Germany to think Rommel was actually a better general than most Allied commanders including Montgomery.
    Washington was distinguished by making no disastrous mistakes - in particular by limiting himself to two presidential terms.
    The excessive respect in which his memory is held has, in balance, served the US quite well.

    As far as his military capabilities are concerned, he won. That's about it.
    Countries need heroes and a narrative, especially a young country like the US back then. As in the comments above both Washington’s and Churchill’s many mistakes tend to have been forgotten.
    This is an interesting comment wrt Ukraine: IMO what we're seeing in Ukraine is the start of a foundation myth. A country and people that is ancient, but which has been near-continuously ruled by stronger neighbours such as Russia and Poland. This war - when (*) they prevail - has created a narrative of togetherness, and several heroes such as Zelensky and Zaluzhnyi. Putin's war may create a much stronger Ukrainian identity.

    (*) And I do think it is a 'when' now, not an 'if'
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,472

    Nigelb said:

    The major Russian shipyard Admiralty Shipyards that specialises in building non-nuclear submarines said its general director Alexander Buzakov had died suddenly on Dec 24 after 11 years in the job, but gave no details.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1607164538268303360

    Was he stood near a window?
    Many Russian submarines do have windows on the sail.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-windows-on-some-Russian-submarine-sails-used-for
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,193
    Nigelb said:

    The major Russian shipyard Admiralty Shipyards that specialises in building non-nuclear submarines said its general director Alexander Buzakov had died suddenly on Dec 24 after 11 years in the job, but gave no details.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1607164538268303360

    He was 66 apparently. He's probably been smoking Belomors since he was 9.

    I don't know if this Ukraine thing is going to get renewed for a third season. Almost all of the blue and yellow profile frames have disappeared from FB which is an ominous sign.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    Treason doth never prosper - why, what’s the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.

    It is amusing though to watch Americans twist and turn over eviscerating Lee and lionising George Washington, because Lee may have freed his slaves, and been a much better general, and won most of his battles, but he was a traitor, unlike Washington apparently…
    Let's not lionise Lee.
    The man was wedded to the system of slavery.
    You don't need to lionise him to point out that every criticism made of Lee could be made of Washington.

    And it's a simple statement of fact to say he was a much better battlefield general.

    Just as you don't need to lionise Nazi Germany to think Rommel was actually a better general than most Allied commanders including Montgomery.
    Washington was distinguished by making no disastrous mistakes - in particular by limiting himself to two presidential terms.
    The excessive respect in which his memory is held has, in balance, served the US quite well.

    As far as his military capabilities are concerned, he won. That's about it.
    He was on the winning side.

    Which is not quite the same thing.

    As with traitors, ultimately successful generals, even bad ones, tend to get a free pass on the rubbish. Frederick the Great of Prussia, for example.

    An interesting exception is Douglas Haig.
    The interesting thing about Washington is that even his contemporaries didn't really know what to make if him, though generally held him in great respect.

    I think there's an element of being an imposing blank slate, on which it was possible to project the desired virtues.
  • Options
    Mr. Jonathan, blimey. Very glad his situation improved, hope it continues to do so.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,277
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    FTP:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good socialist Kings Speech today I thought. Much better than I expected.

    MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
    No, Monarchy = Toryism.

    State control of most of the economy =Socialism
    Also, destroying valued and popular institutions with centuries of history for no good reason and with no real thought about what to put in their place thereby making everything much worse=Socialism.

    So no wonder most republicans are socialists.
    I think that's something of an exaggeration. There can be few more ardently republican nations on earth than the USA but they hate socialists far more than monarchs.

    It would be more accurate the other way around.
    They hate both, at least in their own country.

    The US was built on a revolution against King George III and his government and there are probably even more socialists in the US now in terms of Bernie Sanders and AOC supporters than Americans who would restore the monarchy
    The Americans haven't recently killed any monarchs, to my knowledge.

    But it's not that long ago they were industriously killing socialists, including in their own country.
    Only 8% of Americans want a monarchy, indeed fractionally more Democrats, 12% want a monarchy than the 8% of Republicans who do.

    In America they don't kill socialists internally, even the un American activities cttee only jailed them at most
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/09/16/few-desire-an-american-monarchy-yougov-poll
    The Rosenbergs would wave hello, if they hadn't been executed.
    The Rosenbergs were executed for spying for the Soviet Union, not for their socialism
    You think they were spying for the Soviets for money, a la Ron Pelton?

    Anyway, my point stands. They were socialists who were industriously killed (arguably, industrially killed).
    While the way the trial was conducted and the sentences imposed were deeply controversial, it seems from later evidence that they were Soviet spies.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Later_developments

    Had they been spies and not communists (or communists and not spies) they wouldn’t have been executed.
    By the way, am I the only one who thinks it amusing when Americans call other people traitors, given that their whole country was founded on treason?

    It is like when Putin berates the West for escalating the war which he started and has escalated dozens of times, or when lawyers call other people parasites.
    Treason doth never prosper - why, what’s the reason? If it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.

    It is amusing though to watch Americans twist and turn over eviscerating Lee and lionising George Washington, because Lee may have freed his slaves, and been a much better general, and won most of his battles, but he was a traitor, unlike Washington apparently…
    Let's not lionise Lee.
    The man was wedded to the system of slavery.
    You don't need to lionise him to point out that every criticism made of Lee could be made of Washington.

    And it's a simple statement of fact to say he was a much better battlefield general.

    Just as you don't need to lionise Nazi Germany to think Rommel was actually a better general than most Allied commanders including Montgomery.
    Washington was distinguished by making no disastrous mistakes - in particular by limiting himself to two presidential terms.
    The excessive respect in which his memory is held has, in balance, served the US quite well.

    As far as his military capabilities are concerned, he won. That's about it.
    He was on the winning side.

    Which is not quite the same thing.

    As with traitors, ultimately successful generals, even bad ones, tend to get a free pass on the rubbish. Frederick the Great of Prussia, for example.

    An interesting exception is Douglas Haig.
    The interesting thing about Washington is that even his contemporaries didn't really know what to make if him, though generally held him in great respect.

    I think there's an element of being an imposing blank slate, on which it was possible to project the desired virtues.
    A sort of Starmer...
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,458
    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    The major Russian shipyard Admiralty Shipyards that specialises in building non-nuclear submarines said its general director Alexander Buzakov had died suddenly on Dec 24 after 11 years in the job, but gave no details.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1607164538268303360

    He was 66 apparently. He's probably been smoking Belomors since he was 9.

    I don't know if this Ukraine thing is going to get renewed for a third season. Almost all of the blue and yellow profile frames have disappeared from FB which is an ominous sign.
    It is the US and NATO that funds Zelensky not yellow profile frames on FB. Though still seen plenty there and on twitter
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,193
    I went to school in the US from ages 12-14 and the only things I can (mis)remember about George Washington from my American History class are:

    1. Was ginger.
    2. Tormented by bad teeth.
    3. Intended to join the Royal Navy as a teenage midshipman and was sat on his sea chest ready to go when he was talked out of it at the last moment by his mother.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,516
    edited December 2022

    Mr. Divvie, you do understand that the United Kingdom and Ukraine are in rather different positions, yes?

    Of course they’re different. By your lights one of them has left a union before a painful dissolution occurs while the other is desperate to join that union.

    Perhaps if you used the quote system provided you would have your own words to guide you.

    ‘I think, sadly, the EU will break up and the later it occurs the greater the pain that will be caused’
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,277
    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    The major Russian shipyard Admiralty Shipyards that specialises in building non-nuclear submarines said its general director Alexander Buzakov had died suddenly on Dec 24 after 11 years in the job, but gave no details.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1607164538268303360

    He was 66 apparently. He's probably been smoking Belomors since he was 9.

    I don't know if this Ukraine thing is going to get renewed for a third season. Almost all of the blue and yellow profile frames have disappeared from FB which is an ominous sign.
    It does seem that when you look at the last year that Russia is in a much weaker position, and Ukraine in a much stronger one. A year ago the worry was that Russia would take the Baltuca or Poland. Now they are stalled at Bakhmut, losing 500 soldiers a day.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,943
    Dura_Ace said:

    I went to school in the US from ages 12-14 and the only things I can (mis)remember about George Washington from my American History class are:

    1. Was ginger.
    2. Tormented by bad teeth.
    3. Intended to join the Royal Navy as a teenage midshipman and was sat on his sea chest ready to go when he was talked out of it at the last moment by his mother.

    The sea chest story reminds me of an apocryphal family story about my great grandfather. He was very young in merchant navy. Got a job on a new steam liner. When the time came got pissed, turned up for work in a state and was refused entry. He lost the job and couldn’t sail. Turned out drinking is good for you. James Cameron made a movie about that boat.
  • Options
    Mr. Divvie, you're aware there are other differences between the UK and Ukraine, right?

    Such as: one is currently in the midst of a bitter defensive war having been subject to an act of unwarranted aggression by a far larger neighbour.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,458

    Mr. Divvie, you're aware there are other differences between the UK and Ukraine, right?

    Such as: one is currently in the midst of a bitter defensive war having been subject to an act of unwarranted aggression by a far larger neighbour.

    Indeed, Ukraine's position is the equivalent to the Republic of Ireland's had the UK decided to invade it.

    It is invasion of a foreign nation which is a neighbour, not the internal breakup of a union
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,580
    edited December 2022
    Betting on him last time seemed crazy, and people worry about ruling him out too soon, as Fishing suggests. But even those who like him one would hope are getting tired of his schtick of complaining about losing all the time.

    I think Dura Ace is right that Pence has no viable route to nomination. We know he had fans amonst the evangelicals, but at the moment he's just vaguely anti-Trump, but in a wishy washy way despite what Trump would have been happy to see happen to him, which hardly shows strength.

    On Ukraine/UK and the EU, I remain baffled why people cannot figure out that people might rationally support different paths for countries in different situations. I'd be in favour of both being in, now, but there's nothing illogical in seeing it as good for one and not the other.

    On progress of the war, commentators do seem to be being cagey during the winter, presumably seeing what the Russians are able to come up with next after a burst of optimism following the recapture of Kherson. We can but hope forward momentum for Ukraine can continue to be maintained - quite aside from any moral considerations, it will be considerably cheaper for all concerned if they can press on and retake as much as possible.

    Talk of the revolutionary war is a good coincidence, I was gifted the Cornwell book Redcoat yesterday.
  • Options
    Mr. kjh, hope he can make a full recovery. Great that he so spectacularly defied expectations.
  • Options
    The cultural Marxists, the Wokies and the Muslamics are taking over!
    Surely only a matter of time before rumours surface that Meghan has converted to Islam.


  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,580
    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    The major Russian shipyard Admiralty Shipyards that specialises in building non-nuclear submarines said its general director Alexander Buzakov had died suddenly on Dec 24 after 11 years in the job, but gave no details.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1607164538268303360

    He was 66 apparently. He's probably been smoking Belomors since he was 9.

    I don't know if this Ukraine thing is going to get renewed for a third season. Almost all of the blue and yellow profile frames have disappeared from FB which is an ominous sign.
    It is the US and NATO that funds Zelensky not yellow profile frames on FB. Though still seen plenty there and on twitter
    Look, some people automatically take the most optimistic assessment in any situation and call that analysis, and so some people have to automatically take the most pessimistic assessment in any situation and call that analysis too. They can talk about realpolitik or some such to make it seem less automatic.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,943
    kjh said:

    Jonathan said:

    Gosh, that was a tricky Xmas.

    Xmas Eve Dad (80) admitted to A&E with a chest infection By 10pm situation deteriorated , heart failure, we have hours. End of life discussion. Machines turned off.

    Xmas Day. After 2am Dad seems to strengthen and by lunchtime on Christmas Day medics see Dad and reverse decision to withdraw treatment. Not in end of life mode. He smiles.

    He is still in a serious position with pneumonia, and as dementia patients our family has some serious questions to deal with, but goodness that was a roller coaster.

    A near identical Xmas. Dad (96) set off his alarm before my sister arrived to bring him around to us for Christmas. The alarm company contacted me and a neighbour and an ambulance. I arrived and relieved the neighbour and later my sister and her husband arrived. My dad was lying on the floor and didn't know who I was and couldn't speak. He deteriorated dramatically. Ambulance arrived and he was taken to the ambulance. They called for more help and a paramedic arrived in an ambulance car. We were told he was unlikely to survive the trip to the hospital and asked about resuscitation which luckily both myself and my sister agreed on. His heart beat was over 200.

    30 min later he is sitting up in the ambulance talking to us!!!! We heard more words from him in 5 seconds than we had heard in the previous 4 hours (ie none)

    He is now in hospital with an infection and COVID. How he got COVID goodness know.

    My sister decided not to come around for Christmas. We had a very late dinner and have the most enormous quantity of food
    Oh my. That’s tough. These events are hard at the best of times, Christmas adds a an added layer of complexity and emotional tension. Best wishes for the days to come.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702
    edited December 2022
    Jonathan said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I went to school in the US from ages 12-14 and the only things I can (mis)remember about George Washington from my American History class are:

    1. Was ginger.
    2. Tormented by bad teeth.
    3. Intended to join the Royal Navy as a teenage midshipman and was sat on his sea chest ready to go when he was talked out of it at the last moment by his mother.

    The sea chest story reminds me of an apocryphal family story about my great grandfather. He was very young in merchant navy. Got a job on a new steam liner. When the time came got pissed, turned up for work in a state and was refused entry. He lost the job and couldn’t sail. Turned out drinking is good for you. James Cameron made a movie about that boat.
    In another universe he made it off that boat, becoming a hero by saving the lives of multiple passengers, settled in the US, entered politics, and became President ;)
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702
    kle4 said:

    Betting on him last time seemed crazy, and people worry about ruling him out too soon, as Fishing suggests. But even those who like him one would hope are getting tired of his schtick of complaining about losing all the time.

    I think Dura Ace is right that Pence has no viable route to nomination. We know he had fans amonst the evangelicals, but at the moment he's just vaguely anti-Trump, but in a wishy washy way despite what Trump would have been happy to see happen to him, which hardly shows strength.

    On Ukraine/UK and the EU, I remain baffled why people cannot figure out that people might rationally support different paths for countries in different situations. I'd be in favour of both being in, now, but there's nothing illogical in seeing it as good for one and not the other.

    On progress of the war, commentators do seem to be being cagey during the winter, presumably seeing what the Russians are able to come up with next after a burst of optimism following the recapture of Kherson. We can but hope forward momentum for Ukraine can continue to be maintained - quite aside from any moral considerations, it will be considerably cheaper for all concerned if they can press on and retake as much as possible.

    Talk of the revolutionary war is a good coincidence, I was gifted the Cornwell book Redcoat yesterday.

    His chances are small, but he does surely have the slim chance of what one might call the John Major or Biden route to the top?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,580
    edited December 2022

    The cultural Marxists, the Wokies and the Muslamics are taking over!
    Surely only a matter of time before rumours surface that Meghan has converted to Islam.


    I was going to sarcastically ask which experts he consulted about that muslim claim (probably Professor Farage), but I bet I can figure out the slither of reasoning employed - 46.2% said they were Christian in the last census (in England and Wales), a drop of 13.1%. Assume it drops by the same amount for the next 3 censuses, and that takes it down to 6.9% only. The muslim population was 6.5%, up 1.6%, assume that goes up at the same rate and that is 11.3%, the highest of any religion, therefore predominantly the county is muslim.

    It's just maths people, you can't argue with that.
  • Options

    Mr. Divvie, you're aware there are other differences between the UK and Ukraine, right?

    Such as: one is currently in the midst of a bitter defensive war having been subject to an act of unwarranted aggression by a far larger neighbour.

    So is Ukraine’s emphatic enthusiasm for the EU (greatly supported in polling) a calculated bluff in a time of peril or a disaster waiting to happen when they join an EU on the point of destruction?
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,193

    The cultural Marxists, the Wokies and the Muslamics are taking over!
    Surely only a matter of time before rumours surface that Meghan has converted to Islam.


    Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa salaam) makes the distinction between good and bad kings in the Holy Quran. So royalists are sorted for the post 2050 environment. After all, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, is also the King of Saudi Arabia.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,580
    Dura_Ace said:

    The cultural Marxists, the Wokies and the Muslamics are taking over!
    Surely only a matter of time before rumours surface that Meghan has converted to Islam.


    Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa salaam) makes the distinction between good and bad kings in the Holy Quran. So royalists are sorted for the post 2050 environment. After all, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, is also the King of Saudi Arabia.
    Just raise various sprogs in the royal household up in different faiths, that way they are covered in the event of a sudden mass conversion to buddhism in the country or something, you just make heir the right one.
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    The cultural Marxists, the Wokies and the Muslamics are taking over!
    Surely only a matter of time before rumours surface that Meghan has converted to Islam.


    I was going to sarcastically ask which experts he consulted about that muslim claim (probably Professor Farage), but I bet I can figure out the slither of reasoning employed - 46.2% said they were Christian in the last census (in England and Wales), a drop of 13.1%. Assume it drops by the same amount for the next 3 censuses, and that takes it down to 6.9% only. The muslim population was 6.5%, up 1.6%, assume that goes up at the same rate and that is 11.3%, the highest of any religion, therefore predominantly the county is muslim.

    It's just maths people, you can't argue with that.
    I’d imagined it might be something like that but was too lazy to do the numbers. ‘Experts are predicting’ is always a huge alarm bell.
  • Options
    Dura_Ace said:

    The cultural Marxists, the Wokies and the Muslamics are taking over!
    Surely only a matter of time before rumours surface that Meghan has converted to Islam.


    Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa salaam) makes the distinction between good and bad kings in the Holy Quran. So royalists are sorted for the post 2050 environment. After all, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, is also the King of Saudi Arabia.
    HYUFD going full Salafist in 2050 is something I aim to hang around for.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,702
    kle4 said:

    The cultural Marxists, the Wokies and the Muslamics are taking over!
    Surely only a matter of time before rumours surface that Meghan has converted to Islam.


    I was going to sarcastically ask which experts he consulted about that muslim claim (probably Professor Farage), but I bet I can figure out the slither of reasoning employed - 46.2% said they were Christian in the last census (in England and Wales), a drop of 13.1%. Assume it drops by the same amount for the next 3 censuses, and that takes it down to 6.9% only. The muslim population was 6.5%, up 1.6%, assume that goes up at the same rate and that is 11.3%, the highest of any religion, therefore predominantly the county is muslim.

    It's just maths people, you can't argue with that.
    More likely, look at the part of London that Prince represents, and conclude that he doesn't travel much.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,458
    edited December 2022
    kle4 said:

    The cultural Marxists, the Wokies and the Muslamics are taking over!
    Surely only a matter of time before rumours surface that Meghan has converted to Islam.


    I was going to sarcastically ask which experts he consulted about that muslim claim (probably Professor Farage), but I bet I can figure out the slither of reasoning employed - 46.2% said they were Christian in the last census (in England and Wales), a drop of 13.1%. Assume it drops by the same amount for the next 3 censuses, and that takes it down to 6.9% only. The muslim population was 6.5%, up 1.6%, assume that goes up at the same rate and that is 11.3%, the highest of any religion, therefore predominantly the county is muslim.

    It's just maths people, you can't argue with that.
    No it doesn't, for starters 13% of 46% is only 5.9%.

    Though in any case Christians and Muslims both worship the God of Abraham and even Muslims see Jesus as a Prophet, they just don't believe in the Trinity. They have more in common with each other than atheists on that basis
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,458

    Dura_Ace said:

    The cultural Marxists, the Wokies and the Muslamics are taking over!
    Surely only a matter of time before rumours surface that Meghan has converted to Islam.


    Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa salaam) makes the distinction between good and bad kings in the Holy Quran. So royalists are sorted for the post 2050 environment. After all, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, is also the King of Saudi Arabia.
    HYUFD going full Salafist in 2050 is something I aim to hang around for.
    I would rather go full Salafist than republican and atheist
  • Options
    Jonathan said:

    Gosh, that was a tricky Xmas.

    Xmas Eve Dad (80) admitted to A&E with a chest infection By 10pm situation deteriorated , heart failure, we have hours. End of life discussion. Machines turned off.

    Xmas Day. After 2am Dad seems to strengthen and by lunchtime on Christmas Day medics see Dad and reverse decision to withdraw treatment. Not in end of life mode. He smiles.

    He is still in a serious position with pneumonia, and as dementia patients our family has some serious questions to deal with, but goodness that was a roller coaster.

    Christ, Jonathan - a true Christmas miracle.

    I hope he pulls through and makes a complete recovery.

    Thoughts very much with you.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,535
    Dura_Ace said:

    I went to school in the US from ages 12-14 and the only things I can (mis)remember about George Washington from my American History class are:

    1. Was ginger.
    2. Tormented by bad teeth.
    3. Intended to join the Royal Navy as a teenage midshipman and was sat on his sea chest ready to go when he was talked out of it at the last moment by his mother.

    The whole of US history could be seen as the pursuit of superior dentistry.
This discussion has been closed.