Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Results : June 18th 2015

2»

Comments

  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited June 2015
    First candidate to drop out of the 2016 race:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/245603-rick-perry-calls-charleston-shooting-an-accident

    Perry has not filed his papers yet to the FEC, he has until midnight eastern time or else he's excluded from the race, but after his latest comments I think it makes no difference.
  • You could say that of any treaty.

    No doubt @foxinsoxuk believes that the US-UK extradition treaty, for example, is "a gentleman's agreement", "merely a lot of hot air", since it lacks an enforcement body which overrides national sovereignty. After all, the only way the Americans can enforce it is in the English courts. Tell that to persons arrested in England on the foot of a warrant issued by the United States District Court...
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    I've seen no coherent argument on here tonight that would persuade me to stay in, when someone as intelligent as Fox starts going round in circles and talks rubbish you begin to realize that all the In campaign has is scaremongering.

    And TSE, God help them.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,308
    Speedy said:

    First candidate to drop out of the 2016 race:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/245603-rick-perry-calls-charleston-shooting-an-accident

    Perry has not filed his papers yet to the FEC, he has until midnight eastern time or else he's excluded from the race, but after his latest comments I think it makes no difference.

    He's currently 10th in the polls so if he pulls out it increases the chances for either Santorum or Fiorina to get into the televised debate.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,984

    I've seen no coherent argument on here tonight that would persuade me to stay in, when someone as intelligent as Fox starts going round in circles and talks rubbish you begin to realize that all the In campaign has is scaremongering.

    And TSE, God help them.

    You're the chap predicting an EU civil war, and you accuse us of scaremongering and talking rubbish.

    Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with Matthew 7:5.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800

    I've seen no coherent argument on here tonight that would persuade me to stay in, when someone as intelligent as Fox starts going round in circles and talks rubbish you begin to realize that all the In campaign has is scaremongering.

    And TSE, God help them.

    You're the chap predicting an EU civil war, and you accuse us of scaremongering and talking rubbish.

    Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with Matthew 7:5.
    Ah, thought you had gone out for the evening, maybe you were just lurking after taking justified ridicule earlier.

    I'm not predicting an EU civil war but I am nervous that it may happen, are you saying it is impossible?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    The result of the Danish election probably makes a UK Yes vote more likely.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,984
    edited June 2015

    I've seen no coherent argument on here tonight that would persuade me to stay in, when someone as intelligent as Fox starts going round in circles and talks rubbish you begin to realize that all the In campaign has is scaremongering.

    And TSE, God help them.

    You're the chap predicting an EU civil war, and you accuse us of scaremongering and talking rubbish.

    Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with Matthew 7:5.
    Ah, thought you had gone out for the evening, maybe you were just lurking after taking justified ridicule earlier.

    I'm not predicting an EU civil war but I am nervous that it may happen, are you saying it is impossible?
    Err no, I came back, to publish David's piece for the morning.

    You said

    "So will Europe and that is what scares me the most"

    You said "will", not may.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,424

    I refer to the Germans because they are the leading power in the Eurozone and to a large extent they call the shots. To deny that seems rather daft.

    I am not denying it. But given that the Germans are 3trillion euros of a 10 trillion Eurozone and 80 million people of a 340 million Eurozone, they are by no means the majority, and referring to one as the other place introduces an unnecessary error.

    And again the idea that those in power in the rest of the Eurozone would not have known what the Greeks were doing seems naive at best.

    In a similar way to the banking crisis, the scale of the thing belies the point. By 2012 Greece had thru various machinations lent ~$400,000,000,000. That's for a country with 11 million people. Nobody knew what they were doing because nobody guessed numbers that large: it's like finding out there are only three Scottish people and the rest are made up by Alex Salmond in different wigs.

    Of course the Greeks bear much of the responsibility but the rest of the Eurozone - or their politicians and bureaucrats at least - are not the victims. They are the partner in crime. It is the normal people both inside and outside Greece who are the victims.

    That's not a bad point. But my rebuttal is always the same: in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans. Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War, but the facts were known at the time and a lot of people voted that way regardless
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    Speedy said:

    First candidate to drop out of the 2016 race:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/245603-rick-perry-calls-charleston-shooting-an-accident

    Perry has not filed his papers yet to the FEC, he has until midnight eastern time or else he's excluded from the race, but after his latest comments I think it makes no difference.

    Perry has form on dumb statements.

    Obama came on and instead of just saying that the nation sympathizes with the people of Charleston and walking away, was unable to resist politicizing it by pushing gun control.

    The NAACP head guy instead of saying much the same thing railed about how this is political terrorism and the Confederate flag should be taken down, which is both politicizing it and a leap into irrelevance - is he seriously saying that if the stars and bars wasn't flying this wouldn't have happened?

    We don't need inflammatory statements - we all know this was a heinous attack by a vile racist lunatic - we need to let the Charleston community come together, as it will, and heal itself. Everyone - black and white - is horrified by this attack.

    The DOJ is investigating whether this was a 'hate crime'. Stop - enough already.

    The suspect is in custody and has apparently confessed. Let the justice system take its course.

    THEN worry about the stars and bars, hate crime etc.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834

    I've seen no coherent argument on here tonight that would persuade me to stay in, when someone as intelligent as Fox starts going round in circles and talks rubbish you begin to realize that all the In campaign has is scaremongering.

    And TSE, God help them.

    You're the chap predicting an EU civil war, and you accuse us of scaremongering and talking rubbish.

    Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with Matthew 7:5.
    Ah, thought you had gone out for the evening, maybe you were just lurking after taking justified ridicule earlier.

    I'm not predicting an EU civil war but I am nervous that it may happen, are you saying it is impossible?
    Err no, I came back, to publish David's piece for the morning.

    You said

    "So will Europe and that is what scares me the most"

    You said "will", not may.
    Sorry - just uploading it now.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,984

    I've seen no coherent argument on here tonight that would persuade me to stay in, when someone as intelligent as Fox starts going round in circles and talks rubbish you begin to realize that all the In campaign has is scaremongering.

    And TSE, God help them.

    You're the chap predicting an EU civil war, and you accuse us of scaremongering and talking rubbish.

    Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with Matthew 7:5.
    Ah, thought you had gone out for the evening, maybe you were just lurking after taking justified ridicule earlier.

    I'm not predicting an EU civil war but I am nervous that it may happen, are you saying it is impossible?
    Err no, I came back, to publish David's piece for the morning.

    You said

    "So will Europe and that is what scares me the most"

    You said "will", not may.
    Sorry - just uploading it now.
    Heh, it wasn't a hint.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,157
    kle4 said:
    Alexis Tsipras = Leonidas

    IMF = Xerxes

    IMF Messenger: Choose your next words carefully, Mr Tsipras. They may be your last as Greek PM.

    Alexis Tsipras: [to himself: thinking] "Earth and water"?
    [Tsipras unsheathes and points his sword at the IMF Messenger's throat]

    IMF Messenger: Madman! You're a madman!

    Alexis Tsipras: Earth and water? You'll find plenty of both down there.

    IMF Messenger: No man, German or Greek, no man threatens a messenger!

    Alexis Tsipras: You bring the ashes and ruins of conquered economies to Athens' city steps. You insult my wife. You threaten my people with slavery and death! Oh, I've chosen my words carefully, Bankster. Perhaps you should have done the same!

    IMF Messenger: This is blasphemy! This is madness!

    Alexis Tsipras: Madness...? This is SYRIZA!
    [Tsipras kicks the IMF messenger down the well]
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834

    I've seen no coherent argument on here tonight that would persuade me to stay in, when someone as intelligent as Fox starts going round in circles and talks rubbish you begin to realize that all the In campaign has is scaremongering.

    And TSE, God help them.

    You're the chap predicting an EU civil war, and you accuse us of scaremongering and talking rubbish.

    Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with Matthew 7:5.
    Ah, thought you had gone out for the evening, maybe you were just lurking after taking justified ridicule earlier.

    I'm not predicting an EU civil war but I am nervous that it may happen, are you saying it is impossible?
    I'd like to hear a credible scenario for it.

    By far the most likely power to start a(nother) war in Europe is Russia, not any member of the EU, never mind a majority of them.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    kle4 said:
    Alexis Tsipras = Leonidas

    IMF = Xerxes

    IMF Messenger: Choose your next words carefully, Mr Tsipras. They may be your last as Greek PM.

    Alexis Tsipras: [to himself: thinking] "Earth and water"?
    [Tsipras unsheathes and points his sword at the IMF Messenger's throat]

    IMF Messenger: Madman! You're a madman!

    Alexis Tsipras: Earth and water? You'll find plenty of both down there.

    IMF Messenger: No man, German or Greek, no man threatens a messenger!

    Alexis Tsipras: You bring the ashes and ruins of conquered economies to Athens' city steps. You insult my wife. You threaten my people with slavery and death! Oh, I've chosen my words carefully, Bankster. Perhaps you should have done the same!

    IMF Messenger: This is blasphemy! This is madness!

    Alexis Tsipras: Madness...? This is SYRIZA!
    [Tsipras kicks the IMF messenger down the well]

    At least you resisted "Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!"
  • DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106
    viewcode said:


    That's not a bad point. But my rebuttal is always the same: in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans. Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War, but the facts were known at the time and a lot of people voted that way regardless

    Couple of errors there...

    1) "in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans."
    Nazi Germany was NOT a democracy, and a minority Nazi party seized power and cowed their own people into submission through fear.

    2) "Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War..."

    You can't blame people who voted for Blair in 2001 for the 2003 Iraq war. This was even before 9/11. They had no way of knowing that Blair would react like he did.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800

    I've seen no coherent argument on here tonight that would persuade me to stay in, when someone as intelligent as Fox starts going round in circles and talks rubbish you begin to realize that all the In campaign has is scaremongering.

    And TSE, God help them.

    You're the chap predicting an EU civil war, and you accuse us of scaremongering and talking rubbish.

    Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with Matthew 7:5.
    Ah, thought you had gone out for the evening, maybe you were just lurking after taking justified ridicule earlier.

    I'm not predicting an EU civil war but I am nervous that it may happen, are you saying it is impossible?
    Err no, I came back, to publish David's piece for the morning.

    You said

    "So will Europe and that is what scares me the most"

    You said "will", not may.
    An egotistical pedantic lawyer, how tiresome.

    I asked if you think it is impossible, answer please.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited June 2015
    viewcode said:

    I refer to the Germans because they are the leading power in the Eurozone and to a large extent they call the shots. To deny that seems rather daft.

    I am not denying it. But given that the Germans are 3trillion euros of a 10 trillion Eurozone and 80 million people of a 340 million Eurozone, they are by no means the majority, and referring to one as the other place introduces an unnecessary error.

    And again the idea that those in power in the rest of the Eurozone would not have known what the Greeks were doing seems naive at best.

    In a similar way to the banking crisis, the scale of the thing belies the point. By 2012 Greece had thru various machinations lent ~$400,000,000,000. That's for a country with 11 million people. Nobody knew what they were doing because nobody guessed numbers that large: it's like finding out there are only three Scottish people and the rest are made up by Alex Salmond in different wigs.

    Of course the Greeks bear much of the responsibility but the rest of the Eurozone - or their politicians and bureaucrats at least - are not the victims. They are the partner in crime. It is the normal people both inside and outside Greece who are the victims.

    That's not a bad point. But my rebuttal is always the same: in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans. Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War, but the facts were known at the time and a lot of people voted that way regardless
    Agreed. I do feel bad for the ordinary people of Greece who have suffered greatly, but failing to prevent your government and institutions from ruining you is not something that can be said to be nothing to do with them in a democratic state. Sure, the ordinary citizen should not be pilloried for taking direct action that caused it because they didn't actively do that, but collectively as a society they are not mere powerless victims in all this either. I worry I'm becoming heartless, but the protestations from out of Greece produce no reaction in me anymore. The sheer scale of the problem that they appear just as mired in it as 6 years ago lead me to conclude the ordinary people have more to answer for than just picking poor leaders. Maybe that's unfair of me, and I know squat about economics so certainly don't know what they can do to resolve this with as little suffering as possible, but lack of sympathy at this stage does not appear unreasonable at least. I can only hope if we are in such a mess in my lifetime other nations are kinder than I.

    Good night all.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    edited June 2015
    Disraeli said:

    viewcode said:


    That's not a bad point. But my rebuttal is always the same: in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans. Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War, but the facts were known at the time and a lot of people voted that way regardless

    Couple of errors there...

    1) "in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans."
    Nazi Germany was NOT a democracy, and a minority Nazi party seized power and cowed their own people into submission through fear.

    2) "Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War..."

    You can't blame people who voted for Blair in 2001 for the 2003 Iraq war. This was even before 9/11. They had no way of knowing that Blair would react like he did.
    The Nazi party were elected with the support of DNVP obtaining a majority. They didn't 'seize power'.

    Once elected they made damned sure they wouldn't lose power though.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,984

    I've seen no coherent argument on here tonight that would persuade me to stay in, when someone as intelligent as Fox starts going round in circles and talks rubbish you begin to realize that all the In campaign has is scaremongering.

    And TSE, God help them.

    You're the chap predicting an EU civil war, and you accuse us of scaremongering and talking rubbish.

    Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with Matthew 7:5.
    Ah, thought you had gone out for the evening, maybe you were just lurking after taking justified ridicule earlier.

    I'm not predicting an EU civil war but I am nervous that it may happen, are you saying it is impossible?
    Err no, I came back, to publish David's piece for the morning.

    You said

    "So will Europe and that is what scares me the most"

    You said "will", not may.
    An egotistical pedantic lawyer, how tiresome.

    I asked if you think it is impossible, answer please.
    It's not my fault I exposed your scaremongering.

    Most things are possible, but like my planned night (concurrently) with Christina Hendricks, Karen Gillan and Emma Stone, an EU Civil War is most unlikely to happen.

    But like David, I would like to hear your credible scenario for a civil war.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Disraeli said:

    viewcode said:


    That's not a bad point. But my rebuttal is always the same: in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans. Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War, but the facts were known at the time and a lot of people voted that way regardless

    Couple of errors there...

    1) "in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans."
    Nazi Germany was NOT a democracy, and a minority Nazi party seized power and cowed their own people into submission through fear.

    2) "Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War..."

    You can't blame people who voted for Blair in 2001 for the 2003 Iraq war. This was even before 9/11. They had no way of knowing that Blair would react like he did.
    Point 1 has been answered with a clarification by someone else, but with regards point 2, plenty of people on here recently have stated that Blair's tendencies in interventionism were stoked well before 2003 and should have been obvious to people. A bit much to expect people voting to take such a close look perhaps, but in one sense not at all - it's our own fault if we don't pay close enough attention to who someone is or what they say they'll do, or don't extrapolate what it seems likely they will based on their actions and personality. Sure, specific events are unforeseeable, but if we as a society willfully ignore key things which perhaps might give us a better idea of some future problems arising from that ignoring, we are to blame to some degree, even if that need not lead to outright condemnation depending on how reasonable us not foreseeing something is.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    Disraeli said:

    viewcode said:


    That's not a bad point. But my rebuttal is always the same: in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans. Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War, but the facts were known at the time and a lot of people voted that way regardless

    Couple of errors there...

    1) "in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans."
    Nazi Germany was NOT a democracy, and a minority Nazi party seized power and cowed their own people into submission through fear.

    2) "Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War..."

    You can't blame people who voted for Blair in 2001 for the 2003 Iraq war. This was even before 9/11. They had no way of knowing that Blair would react like he did.
    1. The Nazis won the July 1932 general election comfortably (a 16% clear lead over the next party), the November 1932 election by a little less (a 12% lead) and the March 1933 election by some 25%. It's difficult to argue that these were not democratic elections. There was intimidation but not to an extent that was particularly unusual for the era and certainly prior to 1933, the Communists were just as much up to it. It's hard to deny that a party which consistently came first didn't have the support of a large section of the country. They might have been a minority but so was everyone else and the German electorate consistently returned the Nazis as the largest minority.

    2. You can't blame the 2001 electorate for Blair's decision to invade Iraq but you can blame the 2005 one for returning him. Fact is that for all the demonstrations, Labour maintained a solid lead and the Lib Dems never threatened a move into second never mind first. Blair knew that Iraq wasn't going to shift many votes which was one reason that he could do it.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,308
    Speedy said:


    Perry has not filed his papers yet to the FEC, he has until midnight eastern time or else he's excluded from the race, but after his latest comments I think it makes no difference.

    It looks like Trump is leaving it until the last minute too. He's doesn't appear to have filed his FEC papers yet:

    http://www.fec.gov/press/resources/2016presidential_form2dt.shtml
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,157
    Tim_B said:

    Disraeli said:

    viewcode said:


    That's not a bad point. But my rebuttal is always the same: in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans. Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War, but the facts were known at the time and a lot of people voted that way regardless

    Couple of errors there...

    1) "in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans."
    Nazi Germany was NOT a democracy, and a minority Nazi party seized power and cowed their own people into submission through fear.

    2) "Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War..."

    You can't blame people who voted for Blair in 2001 for the 2003 Iraq war. This was even before 9/11. They had no way of knowing that Blair would react like he did.
    The Nazi party were elected with the support of DNVP obtaining a majority. They didn't 'seize power'.

    Once elected they made damned sure they wouldn't lose power though.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046

    Tim_B said:

    Disraeli said:

    viewcode said:


    That's not a bad point. But my rebuttal is always the same: in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans. Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War, but the facts were known at the time and a lot of people voted that way regardless

    Couple of errors there...

    1) "in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans."
    Nazi Germany was NOT a democracy, and a minority Nazi party seized power and cowed their own people into submission through fear.

    2) "Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War..."

    You can't blame people who voted for Blair in 2001 for the 2003 Iraq war. This was even before 9/11. They had no way of knowing that Blair would react like he did.
    The Nazi party were elected with the support of DNVP obtaining a majority. They didn't 'seize power'.

    Once elected they made damned sure they wouldn't lose power though.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
    It certainly 'enabled' them to do better at the next election

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_election,_November_1933


    I'll get my coat..........
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800

    I've seen no coherent argument on here tonight that would persuade me to stay in, when someone as intelligent as Fox starts going round in circles and talks rubbish you begin to realize that all the In campaign has is scaremongering.

    And TSE, God help them.

    You're the chap predicting an EU civil war, and you accuse us of scaremongering and talking rubbish.

    Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with Matthew 7:5.
    Ah, thought you had gone out for the evening, maybe you were just lurking after taking justified ridicule earlier.

    I'm not predicting an EU civil war but I am nervous that it may happen, are you saying it is impossible?
    I'd like to hear a credible scenario for it.

    By far the most likely power to start a(nother) war in Europe is Russia, not any member of the EU, never mind a majority of them.
    Of course Russia is by far the most likely power to start a future war in Europe, in some ways it is already happening. The EU courted Ukraine and the Russians responded, also they have said they may bail out the Greeks and that would give them a naval base in Europe, which is a scary scenario.

    Someone pointed out below that the EU is being run for the benefit of the Germans, it is hard to disagree and if you do I would like to know your reasoning.

    The Germans are slowly taking over Europe by stealth and resentment will manifest.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    Tim_B said:

    Disraeli said:

    viewcode said:


    That's not a bad point. But my rebuttal is always the same: in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans. Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War, but the facts were known at the time and a lot of people voted that way regardless

    Couple of errors there...

    1) "in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans."
    Nazi Germany was NOT a democracy, and a minority Nazi party seized power and cowed their own people into submission through fear.

    2) "Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War..."

    You can't blame people who voted for Blair in 2001 for the 2003 Iraq war. This was even before 9/11. They had no way of knowing that Blair would react like he did.
    The Nazi party were elected with the support of DNVP obtaining a majority. They didn't 'seize power'.

    Once elected they made damned sure they wouldn't lose power though.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
    My 'damned sure' comment refers to the enabling act referenced in the second paragraph of the url in my post. It was hardly 'democracy in action', but everyone - I thought - knows that.

    Thanks for backing me up!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,157
    Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:

    Disraeli said:

    viewcode said:


    That's not a bad point. But my rebuttal is always the same: in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans. Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War, but the facts were known at the time and a lot of people voted that way regardless

    Couple of errors there...

    1) "in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans."
    Nazi Germany was NOT a democracy, and a minority Nazi party seized power and cowed their own people into submission through fear.

    2) "Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War..."

    You can't blame people who voted for Blair in 2001 for the 2003 Iraq war. This was even before 9/11. They had no way of knowing that Blair would react like he did.
    The Nazi party were elected with the support of DNVP obtaining a majority. They didn't 'seize power'.

    Once elected they made damned sure they wouldn't lose power though.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
    My 'damned sure' comment refers to the enabling act referenced in the second paragraph of the url in my post. It was hardly 'democracy in action', but everyone - I thought - knows that.

    Thanks for backing me up!
    Then post-war there was also the "German Democratic Republic" (East Germany!)
  • DisraeliDisraeli Posts: 1,106
    kle4 said:


    A bit much to expect people voting to take such a close look perhaps, but in one sense not at all - it's our own fault if we don't pay close enough attention to who someone is or what they say they'll do, or don't extrapolate what it seems likely they will based on their actions and personality. Sure, specific events are unforeseeable, but if we as a society willfully ignore key things which perhaps might give us a better idea of some future problems arising from that ignoring, we are to blame to some degree, even if that need not lead to outright condemnation depending on how reasonable us not foreseeing something is.

    Sorry, kle4, that's Utopian.

    At the 2001 election, did you think it probable that the US would be invading a middle Easter country within a few years. And even if you did, would you have thought it likely that Blair would have backed a right-wing US President? And even if you thought that likely, would you have believed that he would have authorised the dodgy dossier and the abandonment of the UN Security Council route?

    No, of course you didnt. Neither did anyone else. So how can we be blamed for the fact that Blair took us into war on a false prospectus.


  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:

    Disraeli said:

    viewcode said:


    That's not a bad point. But my rebuttal is always the same: in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans. Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War, but the facts were known at the time and a lot of people voted that way regardless

    Couple of errors there...

    1) "in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans."
    Nazi Germany was NOT a democracy, and a minority Nazi party seized power and cowed their own people into submission through fear.

    2) "Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War..."

    You can't blame people who voted for Blair in 2001 for the 2003 Iraq war. This was even before 9/11. They had no way of knowing that Blair would react like he did.
    The Nazi party were elected with the support of DNVP obtaining a majority. They didn't 'seize power'.

    Once elected they made damned sure they wouldn't lose power though.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
    My 'damned sure' comment refers to the enabling act referenced in the second paragraph of the url in my post. It was hardly 'democracy in action', but everyone - I thought - knows that.

    Thanks for backing me up!
    Then post-war there was also the "German Democratic Republic" (East Germany!)
    To paraphrase Smokey and the Bandit -

    This is not Germane.

    God damn Germans got nothing to do with it.


    This was about how the Nazis came to power in the 1930s - not how the Russians over-ran Eastern Europe after the war.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,157
    Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:

    Tim_B said:

    Disraeli said:

    viewcode said:


    That's not a bad point. But my rebuttal is always the same: in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans. Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War, but the facts were known at the time and a lot of people voted that way regardless

    Couple of errors there...

    1) "in a democracy, sooner or later you have to blame the people. It wasn't the Nazi party who invaded Poland, it was the Germans."
    Nazi Germany was NOT a democracy, and a minority Nazi party seized power and cowed their own people into submission through fear.

    2) "Depending on politics we blame Margaret Thatcher for the 80's recessions and Tony Blair for the Iraq War..."

    You can't blame people who voted for Blair in 2001 for the 2003 Iraq war. This was even before 9/11. They had no way of knowing that Blair would react like he did.
    The Nazi party were elected with the support of DNVP obtaining a majority. They didn't 'seize power'.

    Once elected they made damned sure they wouldn't lose power though.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
    My 'damned sure' comment refers to the enabling act referenced in the second paragraph of the url in my post. It was hardly 'democracy in action', but everyone - I thought - knows that.

    Thanks for backing me up!
    Then post-war there was also the "German Democratic Republic" (East Germany!)
    To paraphrase Smokey and the Bandit -

    This is not Germane.

    God damn Germans got nothing to do with it.


    This was about how the Nazis came to power in the 1930s - not how the Russians over-ran Eastern Europe after the war.
    Just illustrating the mis-use of the word "democratic" :)
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,157
    Disraeli said:

    kle4 said:


    A bit much to expect people voting to take such a close look perhaps, but in one sense not at all - it's our own fault if we don't pay close enough attention to who someone is or what they say they'll do, or don't extrapolate what it seems likely they will based on their actions and personality. Sure, specific events are unforeseeable, but if we as a society willfully ignore key things which perhaps might give us a better idea of some future problems arising from that ignoring, we are to blame to some degree, even if that need not lead to outright condemnation depending on how reasonable us not foreseeing something is.

    Sorry, kle4, that's Utopian.

    At the 2001 election, did you think it probable that the US would be invading a middle Easter country within a few years. And even if you did, would you have thought it likely that Blair would have backed a right-wing US President? And even if you thought that likely, would you have believed that he would have authorised the dodgy dossier and the abandonment of the UN Security Council route?

    No, of course you didnt. Neither did anyone else. So how can we be blamed for the fact that Blair took us into war on a false prospectus.


    The main events that summer in the UK were the Oldham and Bradford riots:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Oldham_riots
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited June 2015
    Disraeli said:

    kle4 said:


    A bit much to expect people voting to take such a close look perhaps, but in one sense not at all - it's our own fault if we don't pay close enough attention to who someone is or what they say they'll do, or don't extrapolate what it seems likely they will based on their actions and personality. Sure, specific events are unforeseeable, but if we as a society willfully ignore key things which perhaps might give us a better idea of some future problems arising from that ignoring, we are to blame to some degree, even if that need not lead to outright condemnation depending on how reasonable us not foreseeing something is.

    Sorry, kle4, that's Utopian.

    At the 2001 election, did you think it probable that the US would be invading a middle Easter country within a few years. And even if you did, would you have thought it likely that Blair would have backed a right-wing US President? And even if you thought that likely, would you have believed that he would have authorised the dodgy dossier and the abandonment of the UN Security Council route?

    No, of course you didnt. Neither did anyone else. So how can we be blamed for the fact that Blair took us into war on a false prospectus.


    I did specify the level societal culpability would depend on the foreseeability of the specific ruinous actions taken - while blair's potential to lead us down that sort of route has been claimed by some as being clear in hindsight I would not regard the chain of events as particularly foreseeable, and I was not the one who made that comparison.

    Nevertheless, the underlying principle that we the public in a free and democratic society are, in some measure, responsible for the actions of those we choose to lead us and the consequences thereof, is I think sound. Allowing our leaders to take us down a path to financial ruin would be in part our fault even if we did not realise it was happening. With Greece it does not mean every citizen is as culpable as those who took the actions, but as a society they are not mere victims - that would be to rob them of agency and suggest they had no influence in their own society, which isn't true.

    As I often say, we get the politicians that we deserve.

    And now I really do have to sleep.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,308
    edited June 2015

    Just illustrating the mis-use of the word "democratic" :)

    Some interesting use of the word integrity:
    BBC said:

    Outgoing Fifa president Sepp Blatter is backing a proposal for the world governing body's top officials to pass integrity checks.
    Fifa's executive committee will discuss the proposal in Zurich on 20 July, when it will also set the date of the new presidential election.
    He added the test had previously been blocked by European federation Uefa.
    Blatter, who passed an integrity test in February, said: "Confederations are meant to screen officials but a new system would likely see Fifa's ethics chairmen assessing them more rigorously."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33208819
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108


    It's not my fault I exposed your scaremongering.

    Most things are possible, but like my planned night (concurrently) with Christina Hendricks, Karen Gillan and Emma Stone, an EU Civil War is most unlikely to happen.

    But like David, I would like to hear your credible scenario for a civil war.

    You do realise that Emma Stone probably isn't a real ginger?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,571



    1. The Nazis won the July 1932 general election comfortably (a 16% clear lead over the next party), the November 1932 election by a little less (a 12% lead) and the March 1933 election by some 25%. It's difficult to argue that these were not democratic elections. There was intimidation but not to an extent that was particularly unusual for the era and certainly prior to 1933, the Communists were just as much up to it. It's hard to deny that a party which consistently came first didn't have the support of a large section of the country. They might have been a minority but so was everyone else and the German electorate consistently returned the Nazis as the largest minority.

    2. You can't blame the 2001 electorate for Blair's decision to invade Iraq but you can blame the 2005 one for returning him. Fact is that for all the demonstrations, Labour maintained a solid lead and the Lib Dems never threatened a move into second never mind first. Blair knew that Iraq wasn't going to shift many votes which was one reason that he could do it.

    1 is very sound historically. My mother was growing up in the region at the time (Danzig, and her father worked in Berlin). Although the Nazis didn't get an absolute majority until they got in and started rigging the elections, the opposition was split and plenty of non-Nazis were prepared to go along with them - lesser evil, maybe they'll sort things out, alternative is a rabble, etc. I know it's anecdotal but her view was that Hitler then became extremely popular as long as he was winning. She had lots of German friends (who were the source for the above view) but ultimately never bought the theory that the voters were innocent victims.

    Another anecdote: my father had a long holiday in Germany in 1932. He said that even as a visitor, Nazi violence was evident - e.g. the audience in a movie he went to were evacuated when Nazis threw smoke bombs into the theatre (not sure what the movie was that annoyed them). But as a visitor it didn't strike him as especially unique to them - his impression was just that politics in Germany at the time was strong-arm stuff.

    Incidentally, David Downing's Station series of novels unusually puts the history from the viewpoint of German communists throughout the period - it's an illuminating and unusual view, clear-eyed (they're just as willing to kill opponents as anyone else) and not unsympathetic.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    Lovely, interesting post, Nick. Thanks.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,571
    No posts since 9 this morning - am I missing something?
Sign In or Register to comment.