You're sure they haven't simply confirmed LVG for next season?
Maybe, this is could turn into a fiasco
Manchester United's match will kick off at 3.45pm at the earliest, But City's match is still kicking off at 3pm.
In fairness they should probably at least give City the option of putting their match time back too. Not that this will make any difference. City will win. We blew it against West Ham (and on about 15 other occasions in this unhappy season).
If United lose then West Ham could nick their 5th spot.
So we don't have to embarrass ourselves in the mickey mouse cup again? Hmmm....
At the moment it does look like were Sanders Democratic nominee he would win a landslide, as it is it will be Hillary and closer
Looks are deceptive in politics.
Seemingly attractive Sanders would be Dukakis Mk II with knobs on. Clinton is the ugly candidate and will win ugly against an uglier Trump.
As political beauty contests go the US electorate know both Trump and Clinton are not bikini material but will opt for Clinton as looking better in evening dress.
Personality wise Clinton is more like Dukakis, a technocrat if ever there was one, Sanders is a tub thumping populist much like Trump
At the moment it does look like were Sanders Democratic nominee he would win a landslide, as it is it will be Hillary and closer
Looks are deceptive in politics.
Seemingly attractive Sanders would be Dukakis Mk II with knobs on. Clinton is the ugly candidate and will win ugly against an uglier Trump.
As political beauty contests go the US electorate know both Trump and Clinton are not bikini material but will opt for Clinton as looking better in evening dress.
You are quite wrong JackW. Your ARSE has farted out the wrong result. I laid out £100 yesterday on the Donald becoming POTUS should he win the nomination.
Which part of the "Ken Hitler Lesson" have LEAVE not learned....
Senior Tories who are backing a 'Brexit' have rallied to support Boris Johnson after the former London Mayor compared the European Union to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House of Commons, former Cabinet ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Lamont, as well as Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, defended Mr Johnson’s remarks.
There are only two possible reasons for this and neither of them are pleasant.
Either they are dumb enough to actually believe the comparison or they have done some private polling and found the public are dumb enough to believe the comparison. Neither is a reassuring idea.
This referendum comes down to: Economic Security Vs Stopping Unlimited Immigration Everything else is a side show adding to the gaiety of the nation.
This is accurate. And some commentators are going to be surprised at the high turnout on the Leave side. They don't realise that some people will take the view that they're accustomed to being spoken at by politicians talking about economic security ("jobs") every damned election, but they've never before had a chance to express in a serious and consequential way what they think about immigration.
The message from REMAIN is this: "It's Romanians next door, with chickens out the back, or you lose your job".
And REMAIN want people to be so scared that they say, "Oh please, we're crapping ourselves with fear about losing our jobs, so it'll be fine to have Romanians not just next door, but next door the other way too, and in half the houses on our street, just so long as we keep our jobs. We really trust you on protecting our jobs, and keeping prices down, and everything else to do with the Ekonommy, so we promise we won't say anything more about Romanians and how we increasingly feel as though we're living in the Third World."
That's a tall ticket, and not everyone can be fooled all of the time.
I was most unimpressed that John Major attempted to smear all Leaver Tories with the waycist card. And leading Tories fronting VoteLeave. It's just another symptom of the panic. They know it's a very strong Leave card and will do anything to frighten voters off.
Cameron doing a dirty deal to exchange Trade Union Bill concessions for £1.7m in Remain goodies was the lowest point for me. And these people sneer at Neil Hamilton's cash-for-questions brown envelop.
You're sure they haven't simply confirmed LVG for next season?
Maybe, this is could turn into a fiasco
Manchester United's match will kick off at 3.45pm at the earliest, But City's match is still kicking off at 3pm.
In fairness they should probably at least give City the option of putting their match time back too. Not that this will make any difference. City will win. We blew it against West Ham (and on about 15 other occasions in this unhappy season).
If United lose then West Ham could nick their 5th spot.
So we don't have to embarrass ourselves in the mickey mouse cup again? Hmmm....
That's because there've been many more online surveys than phone polls where the smallest IN lead is 7%.
I think I've missed something but why so we think phone polls are more reliable than online polls?
As far as I remember at the general election, none of the pollsters covered themselves with glory (even the once mighty ICM)
This idea what we discount online polls in favour of phone polls looks a bit like "cheeypicking" polls we don't like which was a BIG faux pas on here when I first started ten years ago?
The huge flaws in Singh's methodology were exposed when there was a thread dedicated to his claims a few days ago. Basically using Yougov 6 times as if it were 6 separate pollsters completely skewed the results.
Err no, this was something totally different.
He used Populus to conduct a phone poll and a online poll on the EURef concurrently.
And still has no way of knowing which one us accurate. GIGO.
This is a crucial week for Brexit polling, we should be getting three phone polls.
If they do show Remain maintaining/increasing their hefty leads then we're going to see a major modal issue.
If they show Leave leads/shrinking Remain leads, then it is squeaky bum time for Remain.
But it is still meaningless because we still won't know which is right.
And I suspect we won't find out which is right until June 24th.....
'Private Polling" gave the SNP a nasty shock......
John_N4 - no, not that one - it was a few years ago - and I remember the phrase used exactly.
"Dull white faces"? There's no doubting what kind of a tosser Preston is. Here he is, having a gloat along similar lines. But I'd be interested to read him actually boasting of his own role.
Which part of the "Ken Hitler Lesson" have LEAVE not learned....
Senior Tories who are backing a 'Brexit' have rallied to support Boris Johnson after the former London Mayor compared the European Union to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House of Commons, former Cabinet ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Lamont, as well as Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, defended Mr Johnson’s remarks.
Idiotic. Some honourable Leavers on PB.com, such as Kle and Richard Tyndall, have already condemned this 'EU = Adolf' offensiveness in the strongest terms. Why the likes of IDS and Rees-Mogg have sought to pile in and add fuel to the fire is beyond me. The conceit is indefensible, and attempting to do so just looks arrogant and twisted. The serious Leavers must despair of their leadership.
Which part of the "Ken Hitler Lesson" have LEAVE not learned....
Senior Tories who are backing a 'Brexit' have rallied to support Boris Johnson after the former London Mayor compared the European Union to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House of Commons, former Cabinet ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Lamont, as well as Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, defended Mr Johnson’s remarks.
Idiotic. Some honourable Leavers on PB.com, such as Kle and Richard Tyndall, have already condemned this 'EU = Adolf' offensiveness in the strongest terms. Why the likes of IDS and Rees-Mogg have sought to pile in and add fuel to the fire is beyond me. The conceit is indefensible, and attempting to do so just looks arrogant and twisted. The serious Leavers must despair of their leadership.
Thanks for that Stark. I withdraw my earlier attack and apologise unreservedly.
Yet more honest advice to the Leave campaign from a confirmed Remainian, I see.
I wouldn't put Davis forward - he's still 'middle aged posh white man' - despite his much more modest background than the much posher 'man down the pub Nige'....who for some reason LEAVE want to exclude entirely....does anyone know if ITV have been taken to court yet, or has Dominic Cummings been locked in a room.....
Which part of the "Ken Hitler Lesson" have LEAVE not learned....
Senior Tories who are backing a 'Brexit' have rallied to support Boris Johnson after the former London Mayor compared the European Union to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House of Commons, former Cabinet ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Lamont, as well as Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, defended Mr Johnson’s remarks.
There are only two possible reasons for this and neither of them are pleasant.
Either they are dumb enough to actually believe the comparison or they have done some private polling and found the public are dumb enough to believe the comparison. Neither is a reassuring idea.
There's a third option, I spoke to someone who works for Vote Leave a few months ago, he said if Leave are spending the last 10 days of the campaign about immigration/using World War II analogies, they are trying to prevent a landslide defeat that will settle it for a generation.
If Boris had done it in an interview, I could have understand it as a slip of a tongue, but he's done it in an article, alarm bells should have been going off.
Odd. When Red Ken cited the supposed endorsement of Hitler to discredit a concept he didn't like, there was a near unanimity of fizzing condemnation from the PB Leave community. Boris employs an identical tactic and not a peep. Puzzling.
Its a safe assumption that any politician who mentions Hitler, or WWII generally, has exposed themselves as someone of varying degrees of ridiculousness and/or contemptibility.
I haven't noticed anyone here actually reading it.
As is typical for Mr Johnson, he doesn’t simply examine the EU referendum in terms of weighing the economic case, the impact of immigration or even the vital security arguments. He takes a rather longer view of the question.
“The whole thing began with the Roman Empire,” he says. “I wrote a book on this subject, and I think it’s probably right. The truth is that the history of the last couple of thousand years has been broadly repeated attempts by various people or institutions – in a Freudian way – to rediscover the lost childhood of Europe, this golden age of peace and prosperity under the Romans, by trying to unify it. Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out, and it ends tragically,” he says.
“The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods. But fundamentally what it is lacking is the eternal problem, which is that there is no underlying loyalty to the idea of Europe. There is no single authority that anybody respects or understands. That is causing this massive democratic void.”
Which part of the "Ken Hitler Lesson" have LEAVE not learned....
Senior Tories who are backing a 'Brexit' have rallied to support Boris Johnson after the former London Mayor compared the European Union to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House of Commons, former Cabinet ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Lamont, as well as Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, defended Mr Johnson’s remarks.
Idiotic. Some honourable Leavers on PB.com, such as Kle and Richard Tyndall, have already condemned this 'EU = Adolf' offensiveness in the strongest terms. Why the likes of IDS and Rees-Mogg have sought to pile in and add fuel to the fire is beyond me. The conceit is indefensible, and attempting to do so just looks arrogant and twisted. The serious Leavers must despair of their leadership.
I wouldn't go on about it. People might start asking themselves why that clever fellow Johnson thinks the EU is an oppressive pan-European regime.
Which part of the "Ken Hitler Lesson" have LEAVE not learned....
Senior Tories who are backing a 'Brexit' have rallied to support Boris Johnson after the former London Mayor compared the European Union to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House of Commons, former Cabinet ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Lamont, as well as Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, defended Mr Johnson’s remarks.
Idiotic. Some honourable Leavers on PB.com, such as Kle and Richard Tyndall, have already condemned this 'EU = Adolf' offensiveness in the strongest terms. Why the likes of IDS and Rees-Mogg have sought to pile in and add fuel to the fire is beyond me. The conceit is indefensible, and attempting to do so just looks arrogant and twisted. The serious Leavers must despair of their leadership.
When a colleague has cited Hitler:
1) STFU 2) If pressed, say the analogy is not helpful and move on 3) If asked to condemn, say its not a form of words I would have used, but the overall point that the EU is undemocratic is valid, and move on to that. 4) WHATEVER YOU DO....do not repeat the 'H-word'.
You want the whole thing out of the news Cycle as quickly as possible - goodness knows your opponents will be stoking the flames - so why pour petrol on them.....
Which part of the "Ken Hitler Lesson" have LEAVE not learned....
Senior Tories who are backing a 'Brexit' have rallied to support Boris Johnson after the former London Mayor compared the European Union to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House of Commons, former Cabinet ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Lamont, as well as Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, defended Mr Johnson’s remarks.
There are only two possible reasons for this and neither of them are pleasant.
Either they are dumb enough to actually believe the comparison or they have done some private polling and found the public are dumb enough to believe the comparison. Neither is a reassuring idea.
There's a third option, I spoke to someone who works for Vote Leave a few months ago, he said if Leave are spending the last 10 days of the campaign about immigration/using World War II analogies, they are trying to prevent a landslide defeat that will settle it for a generation.
If Boris had done it in an interview, I could have understand it as a slip of a tongue, but he's done it in an article, alarm bells should have been going off.
A fourth option is it distracts from the idea that "Boris belongs to the Kremlin".
Which, BTW, for all I know, maybe he does. I mean look who owns the Evening Standard.
Rumours that the suspicious package in the Stretford Road end was something called a "trophy" left over from the Ferguson era but not recognised by any of the current staff are still to be confirmed.
At the moment it does look like were Sanders Democratic nominee he would win a landslide, as it is it will be Hillary and closer
Looks are deceptive in politics.
Seemingly attractive Sanders would be Dukakis Mk II with knobs on. Clinton is the ugly candidate and will win ugly against an uglier Trump.
As political beauty contests go the US electorate know both Trump and Clinton are not bikini material but will opt for Clinton as looking better in evening dress.
Personality wise Clinton is more like Dukakis, a technocrat if ever there was one, Sanders is a tub thumping populist much like Trump
Why is the "technocrat" Clinton defeating "tub thumping" Sanders and Trump in polling?
It was rather tense watching the last 20 laps or so. I was relaxed at first, thinking Raikkonen would pass but a third or so odds for 2nd was still great (circa 80/1). Then I thought he might win it.
Odd. When Red Ken cited the supposed endorsement of Hitler to discredit a concept he didn't like, there was a near unanimity of fizzing condemnation from the PB Leave community. Boris employs an identical tactic and not a peep. Puzzling.
Its a safe assumption that any politician who mentions Hitler, or WWII generally, has exposed themselves as someone of varying degrees of ridiculousness and/or contemptibility.
I haven't noticed anyone here actually reading it.
No, because all anyone is talking about is the 'H-word'.
Its not as though an ex-Mayor of London hasn't got into trouble over using it recently has he?
Boris is (allegedly) highly intelligent. It may be that he's just not very smart....
At the moment it does look like were Sanders Democratic nominee he would win a landslide, as it is it will be Hillary and closer
Looks are deceptive in politics.
Seemingly attractive Sanders would be Dukakis Mk II with knobs on. Clinton is the ugly candidate and will win ugly against an uglier Trump.
As political beauty contests go the US electorate know both Trump and Clinton are not bikini material but will opt for Clinton as looking better in evening dress.
You are quite wrong JackW. Your ARSE has farted out the wrong result. I laid out £100 yesterday on the Donald becoming POTUS should he win the nomination.
I will post a rag to clean your left leg Jack.
Your record as a political tipster is legendary and often quoted by the 120 UKIP MP's in parliament ....
At the moment it does look like were Sanders Democratic nominee he would win a landslide, as it is it will be Hillary and closer
Looks are deceptive in politics.
Seemingly attractive Sanders would be Dukakis Mk II with knobs on. Clinton is the ugly candidate and will win ugly against an uglier Trump.
As political beauty contests go the US electorate know both Trump and Clinton are not bikini material but will opt for Clinton as looking better in evening dress.
You are quite wrong JackW. Your ARSE has farted out the wrong result. I laid out £100 yesterday on the Donald becoming POTUS should he win the nomination.
I will post a rag to clean your left leg Jack.
Your record as a political tipster is legendary and often quoted by the 120 UKIP MP's in parliament ....
Oh dear, JackW. 120 UKIP MP's is now passe, surely you can do better than that. :
That's because there've been many more online surveys than phone polls where the smallest IN lead is 7%.
I think I've missed something but why so we think phone polls are more reliable than online polls?
As far as I remember at the general election, none of the pollsters covered themselves with glory (even the once mighty ICM)
This idea what we discount online polls in favour of phone polls looks a bit like "cheeypicking" polls we don't like which was a BIG faux pas on here when I first started ten years ago?
56% of GE2015 campaign phone polls had CON leads compared with 10% of online ones.
So online polls were wrong because they didn't have enough Conservative responders.
But haven't we been told that online polls on the referendum are wrong because they have too many Conservative and UKIP responders ?
As a general rule online polls have too many UKIP participants while phone ones have too many Labour ones
Odd. When Red Ken cited the supposed endorsement of Hitler to discredit a concept he didn't like, there was a near unanimity of fizzing condemnation from the PB Leave community. Boris employs an identical tactic and not a peep. Puzzling.
Its a safe assumption that any politician who mentions Hitler, or WWII generally, has exposed themselves as someone of varying degrees of ridiculousness and/or contemptibility.
I haven't noticed anyone here actually reading it.
As is typical for Mr Johnson, he doesn’t simply examine the EU referendum in terms of weighing the economic case, the impact of immigration or even the vital security arguments. He takes a rather longer view of the question.
“The whole thing began with the Roman Empire,” he says. “I wrote a book on this subject, and I think it’s probably right. The truth is that the history of the last couple of thousand years has been broadly repeated attempts by various people or institutions – in a Freudian way – to rediscover the lost childhood of Europe, this golden age of peace and prosperity under the Romans, by trying to unify it. Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out, and it ends tragically,” he says.
“The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods. But fundamentally what it is lacking is the eternal problem, which is that there is no underlying loyalty to the idea of Europe. There is no single authority that anybody respects or understands. That is causing this massive democratic void.”
You see, what you're expecting me to do there is to read what was actually written instead of the headline or how it was reported. Whilst laudable, it requires skills entirely unused in this debate (cf Cameron & WWIII)
Idle question since we're spinning our wheels without fresh polls to chew on: what do strongly political people do when they meet someone in a social context who has views you really dislike? I was sitting next to someone at a dinner table who harangued me for about 20 minutes on her ultra-Kipperish views of immigrants and the EU. I expressed mild dissent - don't know about that, wouldn't say that myself, etc. - and she ranted on regardless. Eventually I said, "Look, we're not really going to agree on this - shall we talk about something else?" "But it's really important! What you need to realise is..." and off she went again. We were at one end of the table so there was nobody I could turn away to.
Pretending to agree with someone like that is just not an option for me, but I try to be polite, especially in someone else's home. Do you argue, point out mistakes, try to convert them, but maybe embarrass your host by a possibly furious dispute at his table? Or do you reckon that hey, who cares what some random person thinks, you're not going to change their minds anyway, and offer meaningless remarks like "How very interesting"?
At the moment it does look like were Sanders Democratic nominee he would win a landslide, as it is it will be Hillary and closer
Looks are deceptive in politics.
Seemingly attractive Sanders would be Dukakis Mk II with knobs on. Clinton is the ugly candidate and will win ugly against an uglier Trump.
As political beauty contests go the US electorate know both Trump and Clinton are not bikini material but will opt for Clinton as looking better in evening dress.
You are quite wrong JackW. Your ARSE has farted out the wrong result. I laid out £100 yesterday on the Donald becoming POTUS should he win the nomination.
I will post a rag to clean your left leg Jack.
Your record as a political tipster is legendary and often quoted by the 120 UKIP MP's in parliament ....
Oh dear, JackW. 120 UKIP MP's is now passe, surely you can do better than that. :
In the corridors of the Palace of Westminster Douglas Carswell would like to passe one or two other colleagues let alone 119 ....
Idle question since we're spinning our wheels without fresh polls to chew on: what do strongly political people do when they meet someone in a social context who has views you really dislike? I was sitting next to someone at a dinner table who harangued me for about 20 minutes on her ultra-Kipperish views of immigrants and the EU. I expressed mild dissent - don't know about that, wouldn't say that myself, etc. - and she ranted on regardless. Eventually I said, "Look, we're not really going to agree on this - shall we talk about something else?" "But it's really important! What you need to realise is..." and off she went again. We were at one end of the table so there was nobody I could turn away to.
Pretending to agree with someone like that is just not an option for me, but I try to be polite, especially in someone else's home. Do you argue, point out mistakes, try to convert them, but maybe embarrass your host by a possibly furious dispute at his table? Or do you reckon that hey, who cares what some random person thinks, you're not going to change their minds anyway, and offer meaningless remarks like "How very interesting"?
Attack. But with intelligence. Show them up through implacable reasonableness. But be brutal about it.
Odd. When Red Ken cited the supposed endorsement of Hitler to discredit a concept he didn't like, there was a near unanimity of fizzing condemnation from the PB Leave community. Boris employs an identical tactic and not a peep. Puzzling.
Its a safe assumption that any politician who mentions Hitler, or WWII generally, has exposed themselves as someone of varying degrees of ridiculousness and/or contemptibility.
I haven't noticed anyone here actually reading it.
As is typical for Mr Johnson, he doesn’t simply examine the EU referendum in terms of weighing the economic case, the impact of immigration or even the vital security arguments. He takes a rather longer view of the question.
“The whole thing began with the Roman Empire,” he says. “I wrote a book on this subject, and I think it’s probably right. The truth is that the history of the last couple of thousand years has been broadly repeated attempts by various people or institutions – in a Freudian way – to rediscover the lost childhood of Europe, this golden age of peace and prosperity under the Romans, by trying to unify it. Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out, and it ends tragically,” he says.
“The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods. But fundamentally what it is lacking is the eternal problem, which is that there is no underlying loyalty to the idea of Europe. There is no single authority that anybody respects or understands. That is causing this massive democratic void.”
Not sure how that helps the pro-Boris case. He says that Hitler (amongst others) was trying "rediscover the lost childhood of Europe, this golden age of peace and prosperity". Which is what people have been complaining about. It's unfortunate because he suggests that Hitler started off with idealistic motives but then "it ends tragically". In reality Hitler started off with the desire to persecute and murder Jews.
That's because there've been many more online surveys than phone polls where the smallest IN lead is 7%.
I think I've missed something but why so we think phone polls are more reliable than online polls?
As far as I remember at the general election, none of the pollsters covered themselves with glory (even the once mighty ICM)
This idea what we discount online polls in favour of phone polls looks a bit like "cheeypicking" polls we don't like which was a BIG faux pas on here when I first started ten years ago?
56% of GE2015 campaign phone polls had CON leads compared with 10% of online ones.
So online polls were wrong because they didn't have enough Conservative responders.
But haven't we been told that online polls on the referendum are wrong because they have too many Conservative and UKIP responders ?
As a general rule online polls have too many UKIP participants while phone ones have too many Labour ones
Thanks.
But shouldn't all this be taken into account when the pollsters weigh by previous voting ?
Odd. When Red Ken cited the supposed endorsement of Hitler to discredit a concept he didn't like, there was a near unanimity of fizzing condemnation from the PB Leave community. Boris employs an identical tactic and not a peep. Puzzling.
Its a safe assumption that any politician who mentions Hitler, or WWII generally, has exposed themselves as someone of varying degrees of ridiculousness and/or contemptibility.
I haven't noticed anyone here actually reading it.
No, because all anyone is talking about is the 'H-word'.
Its not as though an ex-Mayor of London hasn't got into trouble over using it recently has he?
Boris is (allegedly) highly intelligent. It may be that he's just not very smart....
Say what you like about Boris, but the man is a fine wordsmith and knows the power of language. He would know perfectly well that the 'H-word' would be incendiary, but went ahead regardless. I think he wants Leave to win, but if he takes enough of the shine of the Leave campaign and they win anyway, then the win will all be about Boris. It's a clever tactic but not one without risk.
Which part of the "Ken Hitler Lesson" have LEAVE not learned....
Senior Tories who are backing a 'Brexit' have rallied to support Boris Johnson after the former London Mayor compared the European Union to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House of Commons, former Cabinet ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Lamont, as well as Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, defended Mr Johnson’s remarks.
1) STFU 2) If pressed, say the analogy is not helpful and move on 3) If asked to condemn, say its not a form of words I would have used, but the overall point that the EU is undemocratic is valid, and move on to that. 4) WHATEVER YOU DO....do not repeat the 'H-word'.
You want the whole thing out of the news Cycle as quickly as possible - goodness knows your opponents will be stoking the flames - so why pour petrol on them.....
Absolutely. Whatever the fairness of including the H word, if you can make the same point without it, do so. Obviously in this case he could, since he referenced Napoleon as another example. Now some have argued using the H word got the point more attention than it otherwise would, which is possible, but it also produced a lot more confusion around what his actual point will have been outside a general recollection he was comparing to Hitler. Remain can and will ridicule other good points made on the basis he thinks the EU is like Hitler, and he will have to clarify what he means again, probably get angry at having to do so and act silly about it.
Idle question since we're spinning our wheels without fresh polls to chew on: what do strongly political people do when they meet someone in a social context who has views you really dislike? I was sitting next to someone at a dinner table who harangued me for about 20 minutes on her ultra-Kipperish views of immigrants and the EU. I expressed mild dissent - don't know about that, wouldn't say that myself, etc. - and she ranted on regardless. Eventually I said, "Look, we're not really going to agree on this - shall we talk about something else?" "But it's really important! What you need to realise is..." and off she went again. We were at one end of the table so there was nobody I could turn away to.
Pretending to agree with someone like that is just not an option for me, but I try to be polite, especially in someone else's home. Do you argue, point out mistakes, try to convert them, but maybe embarrass your host by a possibly furious dispute at his table? Or do you reckon that hey, who cares what some random person thinks, you're not going to change their minds anyway, and offer meaningless remarks like "How very interesting"?
I'm a bit of a social coward, so I tend to go the offer meaningless remarks approach, agree more obviously with the few bits I do agree with, and occasionally test out what I consider reasonable alternative viewpoints in a 'some people say' kind of way, but don't press it if they respond negatively to it.
The only time someone said something I disliked so much I had to disagree vehemently wasn't really political, it was a general discussion about immigration, and they expressed their distaste for n-word music.
Odd. When Red Ken cited the supposed endorsement of Hitler to discredit a concept he didn't like, there was a near unanimity of fizzing condemnation from the PB Leave community. Boris employs an identical tactic and not a peep. Puzzling.
Its a safe assumption that any politician who mentions Hitler, or WWII generally, has exposed themselves as someone of varying degrees of ridiculousness and/or contemptibility.
I haven't noticed anyone here actually reading it.
As is typical for Mr Johnson, he doesn’t simply examine the EU referendum in terms of weighing the economic case, the impact of immigration or even the vital security arguments. He takes a rather longer view of the question.
“The whole thing began with the Roman Empire,” he says. “I wrote a book on this subject, and I think it’s probably right. The truth is that the history of the last couple of thousand years has been broadly repeated attempts by various people or institutions – in a Freudian way – to rediscover the lost childhood of Europe, this golden age of peace and prosperity under the Romans, by trying to unify it. Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out, and it ends tragically,” he says.
“The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods. But fundamentally what it is lacking is the eternal problem, which is that there is no underlying loyalty to the idea of Europe. There is no single authority that anybody respects or understands. That is causing this massive democratic void.”
Not sure how that helps the pro-Boris case. He says that Hitler (amongst others) was trying "rediscover the lost childhood of Europe, this golden age of peace and prosperity". Which is what people have been complaining about. It's unfortunate because he suggests that Hitler started off with idealistic motives but then "it ends tragically". In reality Hitler started off with the desire to persecute and murder Jews.
Poor misunderstood Hitler. He just wanted everyone to get along.
Odd. When Red Ken cited the supposed endorsement of Hitler to discredit a concept he didn't like, there was a near unanimity of fizzing condemnation from the PB Leave community. Boris employs an identical tactic and not a peep. Puzzling.
Its a safe assumption that any politician who mentions Hitler, or WWII generally, has exposed themselves as someone of varying degrees of ridiculousness and/or contemptibility.
I haven't noticed anyone here actually reading it.
As is typical for Mr Johnson, he doesn’t simply examine the EU referendum in terms of weighing the economic case, the impact of immigration or even the vital security arguments. He takes a rather longer view of the question.
“The whole thing began with the Roman Empire,” he says. “I wrote a book on this subject, and I think it’s probably right. The truth is that the history of the last couple of thousand years has been broadly repeated attempts by various people or institutions – in a Freudian way – to rediscover the lost childhood of Europe, this golden age of peace and prosperity under the Romans, by trying to unify it. Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out, and it ends tragically,” he says.
“The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods. But fundamentally what it is lacking is the eternal problem, which is that there is no underlying loyalty to the idea of Europe. There is no single authority that anybody respects or understands. That is causing this massive democratic void.”
You see, what you're expecting me to do there is to read what was actually written instead of the headline or how it was reported. Whilst laudable, it requires skills entirely unused in this debate (cf Cameron & WWIII)
Quite. The poster who banged on about Dave's WAR!!! ad infinitum, even though it turned out to be a blatant invention, now wants us to embrace the glories of forensic textual analysis. You couldn't make it up etc.
At the moment it does look like were Sanders Democratic nominee he would win a landslide, as it is it will be Hillary and closer
Looks are deceptive in politics.
Seemingly attractive Sanders would be Dukakis Mk II with knobs on. Clinton is the ugly candidate and will win ugly against an uglier Trump.
As political beauty contests go the US electorate know both Trump and Clinton are not bikini material but will opt for Clinton as looking better in evening dress.
Personality wise Clinton is more like Dukakis, a technocrat if ever there was one, Sanders is a tub thumping populist much like Trump
Why is the "technocrat" Clinton defeating "tub thumping" Sanders and Trump in polling?
She defeats Sanders in polls of Democrats, although even there he is running her close but he does better than her in general election polling
Idle question since we're spinning our wheels without fresh polls to chew on: what do strongly political people do when they meet someone in a social context who has views you really dislike? I was sitting next to someone at a dinner table who harangued me for about 20 minutes on her ultra-Kipperish views of immigrants and the EU. I expressed mild dissent - don't know about that, wouldn't say that myself, etc. - and she ranted on regardless. Eventually I said, "Look, we're not really going to agree on this - shall we talk about something else?" "But it's really important! What you need to realise is..." and off she went again. We were at one end of the table so there was nobody I could turn away to.
Pretending to agree with someone like that is just not an option for me, but I try to be polite, especially in someone else's home. Do you argue, point out mistakes, try to convert them, but maybe embarrass your host by a possibly furious dispute at his table? Or do you reckon that hey, who cares what some random person thinks, you're not going to change their minds anyway, and offer meaningless remarks like "How very interesting"?
I usually just raise my eyebrows, shrug and change the subject. If that doesn't work (which no doubt it wouldn't have in your case) then I try to express my disagreement briefly, clearly and in terms that make it clear that I am the Enemy (from their point of view).
My goal isn't to convert anyone but just to get them to shut up. I think it's uncivilised to preach about politics in a social setting. If someone is doing it I just want them to be quiet.
Which part of the "Ken Hitler Lesson" have LEAVE not learned....
Senior Tories who are backing a 'Brexit' have rallied to support Boris Johnson after the former London Mayor compared the European Union to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House of Commons, former Cabinet ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Lamont, as well as Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, defended Mr Johnson’s remarks.
Idiotic. Some honourable Leavers on PB.com, such as Kle and Richard Tyndall, have already condemned this 'EU = Adolf' offensiveness in the strongest terms. Why the likes of IDS and Rees-Mogg have sought to pile in and add fuel to the fire is beyond me. The conceit is indefensible, and attempting to do so just looks arrogant and twisted. The serious Leavers must despair of their leadership.
Believe me, I value your view on my honourability as much as a piece of navel lint, but I must point out it seems not to have occurred to you that people might find validity in Boris's comparison that they don't find in Ken's. They are, after all, different comparisons.
Mr. Mark, fortunately, my trousers only explode when I have such phenomenal tips. Which is very rare, and ensures I have sufficient pecuniary advantage to afford new ones
Mr. Mark, fortunately, my trousers only explode when I have such phenomenal tips. Which is very rare, and ensures I have sufficient pecuniary advantage to afford new ones
When you go trouser shopping I'm quite happy to tag along and give you some fashion advice.
Which part of the "Ken Hitler Lesson" have LEAVE not learned....
Senior Tories who are backing a 'Brexit' have rallied to support Boris Johnson after the former London Mayor compared the European Union to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House of Commons, former Cabinet ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Lamont, as well as Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, defended Mr Johnson’s remarks.
Idiotic. Some honourable Leavers on PB.com, such as Kle and Richard Tyndall, have already condemned this 'EU = Adolf' offensiveness in the strongest terms. Why the likes of IDS and Rees-Mogg have sought to pile in and add fuel to the fire is beyond me. The conceit is indefensible, and attempting to do so just looks arrogant and twisted. The serious Leavers must despair of their leadership.
Believe me, I value your view on my honourability as much as a piece of navel lint, but I must point out it seems not to have occurred to you that people might find validity in Boris's comparison that they don't find in Ken's. They are, after all, different comparisons.
Boris's point was much more relevant - Yes Minister made a very similar gag about the Napoleon prize 'for the statesman who's made the biggest contribution to european unity since napoleon; that is if you don't count Hitler' - so his use of Hitler to make a point was not as out of left field or immediately offensive. But he is supposed to be a smart man, he knows how these things get boiled down to a headline, so either he is an idiot, or he wanted this reaction as presumably he feels the additional publicity of the story will outweigh the capital Remain will make of it by extrapolating his point to absurdity (which is something that happens on all sides of a debate, and neither can whinge about happening in this case with any credibility).
At the moment it does look like were Sanders Democratic nominee he would win a landslide, as it is it will be Hillary and closer
Looks are deceptive in politics.
Seemingly attractive Sanders would be Dukakis Mk II with knobs on. Clinton is the ugly candidate and will win ugly against an uglier Trump.
As political beauty contests go the US electorate know both Trump and Clinton are not bikini material but will opt for Clinton as looking better in evening dress.
Personality wise Clinton is more like Dukakis, a technocrat if ever there was one, Sanders is a tub thumping populist much like Trump
Why is the "technocrat" Clinton defeating "tub thumping" Sanders and Trump in polling?
She defeats Sanders in polls of Democrats, although even there he is running her close but he does better than her in general election polling
General Election polls which show Clinton losing to Sanders or Kasich or whoever only provide evidence of a resistance to electing Hillary Rodham Clinton to the White House. They underline why Trump has a fantastic shot at beating her.
Odd. When Red Ken cited the supposed endorsement of Hitler to discredit a concept he didn't like, there was a near unanimity of fizzing condemnation from the PB Leave community. Boris employs an identical tactic and not a peep. Puzzling.
Its a safe assumption that any politician who mentions Hitler, or WWII generally, has exposed themselves as someone of varying degrees of ridiculousness and/or contemptibility.
I haven't noticed anyone here actually reading it.
No, because all anyone is talking about is the 'H-word'.
Its not as though an ex-Mayor of London hasn't got into trouble over using it recently has he?
Boris is (allegedly) highly intelligent. It may be that he's just not very smart....
Say what you like about Boris, but the man is a fine wordsmith and knows the power of language. He would know perfectly well that the 'H-word' would be incendiary, but went ahead regardless. I think he wants Leave to win, but if he takes enough of the shine of the Leave campaign and they win anyway, then the win will all be about Boris. It's a clever tactic but not one without risk.
Unfortunately I think that the legendary Boris laziness is spreading to his verbal output as well. He has been able to get away for so long now with saying whatever he likes because people ssy "oh that's just Boris" that he has got into the mindset where he believes he can say anything he likes without repercussions. Actually having to consider the implications of what he is going to say is hard work and he just doesn't bother.
It is why he will become more of a liability -or at least less of an asset - to Leave as time passes.
Idle question since we're spinning our wheels without fresh polls to chew on: what do strongly political people do when they meet someone in a social context who has views you really dislike? I was sitting next to someone at a dinner table who harangued me for about 20 minutes on her ultra-Kipperish views of immigrants and the EU. I expressed mild dissent - don't know about that, wouldn't say that myself, etc. - and she ranted on regardless. Eventually I said, "Look, we're not really going to agree on this - shall we talk about something else?" "But it's really important! What you need to realise is..." and off she went again. We were at one end of the table so there was nobody I could turn away to.
Pretending to agree with someone like that is just not an option for me, but I try to be polite, especially in someone else's home. Do you argue, point out mistakes, try to convert them, but maybe embarrass your host by a possibly furious dispute at his table? Or do you reckon that hey, who cares what some random person thinks, you're not going to change their minds anyway, and offer meaningless remarks like "How very interesting"?
I'm fairly regularly (though not frequently) subjected to this working in an office in Scotland.
Being a lot more conflict averse in real life than I am here in my keyboard warrior mode, I look for common ground and focus the discussion on that. There usually is some, so it's not particularly difficult. If I were being more assertive, I might still look for common ground, but argue more points.
I'm very guarded with my views with people I hardly know, and even with people I know I am very cautious. I wouldn't have engaged in any way shape or form and let her rant on. Notrights invariably expose themselves by what comes out of their mouths.
A very close friend of mine for many years was shocked and stunned when I disclosed by chance that I was interested in animal rights recently (I didn't say just how much). It actually nearly finished our friendship such was his hostility to people who show compassion to animals. I had to step back and accept that our friendship has different points of connection...cricket, films, books, work, philosophy and moral subjects, art and personal issues, and many more.
Idle question since we're spinning our wheels without fresh polls to chew on: what do strongly political people do when they meet someone in a social context who has views you really dislike? I was sitting next to someone at a dinner table who harangued me for about 20 minutes on her ultra-Kipperish views of immigrants and the EU. I expressed mild dissent - don't know about that, wouldn't say that myself, etc. - and she ranted on regardless. Eventually I said, "Look, we're not really going to agree on this - shall we talk about something else?" "But it's really important! What you need to realise is..." and off she went again. We were at one end of the table so there was nobody I could turn away to.
Pretending to agree with someone like that is just not an option for me, but I try to be polite, especially in someone else's home. Do you argue, point out mistakes, try to convert them, but maybe embarrass your host by a possibly furious dispute at his table? Or do you reckon that hey, who cares what some random person thinks, you're not going to change their minds anyway, and offer meaningless remarks like "How very interesting"?
Odd. When Red Ken cited the supposed endorsement of Hitler to discredit a concept he didn't like, there was a near unanimity of fizzing condemnation from the PB Leave community. Boris employs an identical tactic and not a peep. Puzzling.
Its a safe assumption that any politician who mentions Hitler, or WWII generally, has exposed themselves as someone of varying degrees of ridiculousness and/or contemptibility.
I haven't noticed anyone here actually reading it.
As is typical for Mr Johnson, he doesn’t simply examine the EU referendum in terms of weighing the economic case, the impact of immigration or even the vital security arguments. He takes a rather longer view of the question.
“The whole thing began with the Roman Empire,” he says. “I wrote a book on this subject, and I think it’s probably right. The truth is that the history of the last couple of thousand years has been broadly repeated attempts by various people or institutions – in a Freudian way – to rediscover the lost childhood of Europe, this golden age of peace and prosperity under the Romans, by trying to unify it. Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out, and it ends tragically,” he says.
“The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods. But fundamentally what it is lacking is the eternal problem, which is that there is no underlying loyalty to the idea of Europe. There is no single authority that anybody respects or understands. That is causing this massive democratic void.”
You see, what you're expecting me to do there is to read what was actually written instead of the headline or how it was reported. Whilst laudable, it requires skills entirely unused in this debate (cf Cameron & WWIII)
Quite. The poster who banged on about Dave's WAR!!! ad infinitum, even though it turned out to be a blatant invention, now wants us to embrace the glories of forensic textual analysis. You couldn't make it up etc.
It was not an invention at all. Well except by Dave and his speech writers.
Which part of the "Ken Hitler Lesson" have LEAVE not learned....
Senior Tories who are backing a 'Brexit' have rallied to support Boris Johnson after the former London Mayor compared the European Union to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House of Commons, former Cabinet ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Lamont, as well as Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, defended Mr Johnson’s remarks.
Idiotic. Some honourable Leavers on PB.com, such as Kle and Richard Tyndall, have already condemned this 'EU = Adolf' offensiveness in the strongest terms. Why the likes of IDS and Rees-Mogg have sought to pile in and add fuel to the fire is beyond me. The conceit is indefensible, and attempting to do so just looks arrogant and twisted. The serious Leavers must despair of their leadership.
Believe me, I value your view on my honourability as much as a piece of navel lint, but I must point out it seems not to have occurred to you that people might find validity in Boris's comparison that they don't find in Ken's. They are, after all, different comparisons.
If I understand Plato's post below correctly, Boris thinks Hitler was trying to recreate a golden age of prosperity. So you are right: they are different comparisons. Unfortunately, Boris's comparison is actually worse than Ken's.
Which part of the "Ken Hitler Lesson" have LEAVE not learned....
Senior Tories who are backing a 'Brexit' have rallied to support Boris Johnson after the former London Mayor compared the European Union to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House of Commons, former Cabinet ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Lamont, as well as Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, defended Mr Johnson’s remarks.
Idiotic. Some honourable Leavers on PB.com, such as Kle and Richard Tyndall, have already condemned this 'EU = Adolf' offensiveness in the strongest terms. Why the likes of IDS and Rees-Mogg have sought to pile in and add fuel to the fire is beyond me. The conceit is indefensible, and attempting to do so just looks arrogant and twisted. The serious Leavers must despair of their leadership.
Believe me, I value your view on my honourability as much as a piece of navel lint, but I must point out it seems not to have occurred to you that people might find validity in Boris's comparison that they don't find in Ken's. They are, after all, different comparisons.
If they do then they're nuts.
Boris has just implied that Hitler wanted to recreate the 'golden age of peace and prosperity under the Romans' but that it ended badly.
On balance I think it's Boris who's shown himself up.
Economic Security Vs Stopping Unlimited Immigration
As noted on a previous thread.
How much are you willing to pay (Economic Security) to prevent your neighbour from being able to hire a competent Polish plumber (Stopping Unlimited Immigration) ?
Well personally I'm voting OUT on grounds of sovereignty.
I'm actually fairly relaxed about immigration and I don't believe for one moment that the EU guarantees our economic security.
But for me, self-governance is more important than everything else (plus we get to see Cameron and Osborne eviscerated from a LEAVE vote) But I'm in the minority. Most peole will vote on economic security against immigration.
At the moment it does look like were Sanders Democratic nominee he would win a landslide, as it is it will be Hillary and closer
Looks are deceptive in politics.
Seemingly attractive Sanders would be Dukakis Mk II with knobs on. Clinton is the ugly candidate and will win ugly against an uglier Trump.
As political beauty contests go the US electorate know both Trump and Clinton are not bikini material but will opt for Clinton as looking better in evening dress.
Personality wise Clinton is more like Dukakis, a technocrat if ever there was one, Sanders is a tub thumping populist much like Trump
Why is the "technocrat" Clinton defeating "tub thumping" Sanders and Trump in polling?
She defeats Sanders in polls of Democrats, although even there he is running her close but he does better than her in general election polling
Somewhat like saying Man City might beat Athletico Madrid in the final of the Champions League if only City had beaten Real Madrid in the semi.
At the moment it does look like were Sanders Democratic nominee he would win a landslide, as it is it will be Hillary and closer
Looks are deceptive in politics.
Seemingly attractive Sanders would be Dukakis Mk II with knobs on. Clinton is the ugly candidate and will win ugly against an uglier Trump.
As political beauty contests go the US electorate know both Trump and Clinton are not bikini material but will opt for Clinton as looking better in evening dress.
Personality wise Clinton is more like Dukakis, a technocrat if ever there was one, Sanders is a tub thumping populist much like Trump
Why is the "technocrat" Clinton defeating "tub thumping" Sanders and Trump in polling?
She defeats Sanders in polls of Democrats, although even there he is running her close but he does better than her in general election polling
General Election polls which show Clinton losing to Sanders or Kasich or whoever only provide evidence of a resistance to electing Hillary Rodham Clinton to the White House. They underline why Trump has a fantastic shot at beating her.
General election polls show both Sanders and Clinton beating Trump. Of course Hillary is beatable, Obama beat her for a reason and the Dems have been in the White House for eight years. Were Kasich the GOP nominee Hillary would almost certainly lose, by picking Trump Hillary is the most likely but not certain winner
Which part of the "Ken Hitler Lesson" have LEAVE not learned....
Senior Tories who are backing a 'Brexit' have rallied to support Boris Johnson after the former London Mayor compared the European Union to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House of Commons, former Cabinet ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Lamont, as well as Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, defended Mr Johnson’s remarks.
Idiotic. Some honourable Leavers on PB.com, such as Kle and Richard Tyndall, have already condemned this 'EU = Adolf' offensiveness in the strongest terms. Why the likes of IDS and Rees-Mogg have sought to pile in and add fuel to the fire is beyond me. The conceit is indefensible, and attempting to do so just looks arrogant and twisted. The serious Leavers must despair of their leadership.
Believe me, I value your view on my honourability as much as a piece of navel lint, but I must point out it seems not to have occurred to you that people might find validity in Boris's comparison that they don't find in Ken's. They are, after all, different comparisons.
Boris's point was much more relevant - Yes Minister made a very similar gag about the Napoleon prize 'for the statesman who's made the biggest contribution to european unity since napoleon; that is if you don't count Hitler' - so his use of Hitler to make a point was not as out of left field or immediately offensive. But he is supposed to be a smart man, he knows how these things get boiled down to a headline, so either he is an idiot, or he wanted this reaction as presumably he feels the additional publicity of the story will outweigh the capital Remain will make of it by extrapolating his point to absurdity (which is something that happens on all sides of a debate, and neither can whinge about happening in this case with any credibility).
But that is a question of tactics. What Stark Dawning is saying everyone should be as horrified by this as they were by Ken, or they're not honourable.
At the moment it does look like were Sanders Democratic nominee he would win a landslide, as it is it will be Hillary and closer
Looks are deceptive in politics.
Seemingly attractive Sanders would be Dukakis Mk II with knobs on. Clinton is the ugly candidate and will win ugly against an uglier Trump.
As political beauty contests go the US electorate know both Trump and Clinton are not bikini material but will opt for Clinton as looking better in evening dress.
Personality wise Clinton is more like Dukakis, a technocrat if ever there was one, Sanders is a tub thumping populist much like Trump
Why is the "technocrat" Clinton defeating "tub thumping" Sanders and Trump in polling?
She defeats Sanders in polls of Democrats, although even there he is running her close but he does better than her in general election polling
General Election polls which show Clinton losing to Sanders or Kasich or whoever only provide evidence of a resistance to electing Hillary Rodham Clinton to the White House. They underline why Trump has a fantastic shot at beating her.
General election polls show both Sanders and Clinton beating Trump. Of course Hillary is beatable, Obama beat her for a reason and the Dems have been in the White House for eight years. We're Kasich the GOP nominee Hillary would almost certainly lose, by picking Trump Hillary is the most likely but not certain winner
As it stands at the moment Hilary will be President... But who knows what's going to come out about the Clinton's between now and November...
I reckon Trump is one major Clinton scandal away from becoming POTUS.
Being a lot more conflict averse in real life than I am here in my keyboard warrior mode,
See, I'm the opposite. I'm actually an aggressively confrontational individual in real life, so much so I join both BNP and anti-BNP marches just for the thrill of the conflict, and online of for relaxed roleplaying.
Unfortunately I think that the legendary Boris laziness is spreading to his verbal output as well. He has been able to get away for so long now with saying whatever he likes because people ssy "oh that's just Boris" that he has got into the mindset where he believes he can say anything he likes without repercussions. Actually having to consider the implications of what he is going to say is hard work and he just doesn't bother.
It is why he will become more of a liability -or at least less of an asset - to Leave as time passes.
To be honest I'm not sure if Boris is a net liability for Leave.
Where I think his style of politics would go horribly awry is if he becomes Prime Minister.
I doubt that you are a social coward. What is the point of trying to impose your views over other people?
I don't think there is anyone who I can completely openly discuss my views with. PbCOM is as close as it gets to finding out what I really think, and then you don't get the full picture.
My closest friend is a raving right winger..... Another is a leading Marxist. I recently lost a long cherished friend- a diehard Jewist Zionist over a rash comment I made over Israel. I thought he could take it, and I bitterly regret the argument, but I cannot take it back.
Idle question since we're spinning our wheels without fresh polls to chew on: what do strongly political people do when they meet someone in a social context who has views you really dislike? I was sitting next to someone at a dinner table who harangued me for about 20 minutes on her ultra-Kipperish views of immigrants and the EU. I expressed mild dissent - don't know about that, wouldn't say that myself, etc. - and she ranted on regardless. Eventually I said, "Look, we're not really going to agree on this - shall we talk about something else?" "But it's really important! What you need to realise is..." and off she went again. We were at one end of the table so there was nobody I could turn away to.
Pretending to agree with someone like that is just not an option for me, but I try to be polite, especially in someone else's home. Do you argue, point out mistakes, try to convert them, but maybe embarrass your host by a possibly furious dispute at his table? Or do you reckon that hey, who cares what some random person thinks, you're not going to change their minds anyway, and offer meaningless remarks like "How very interesting"?
I'm a bit of a social coward, so I tend to go the offer meaningless remarks approach, agree more obviously with the few bits I do agree with, and occasionally test out what I consider reasonable alternative viewpoints in a 'some people say' kind of way, but don't press it if they respond negatively to it.
The only time someone said something I disliked so much I had to disagree vehemently wasn't really political, it was a general discussion about immigration, and they expressed their distaste for n-word music.
Which part of the "Ken Hitler Lesson" have LEAVE not learned....
Senior Tories who are backing a 'Brexit' have rallied to support Boris Johnson after the former London Mayor compared the European Union to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House of Commons, former Cabinet ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Lamont, as well as Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, defended Mr Johnson’s remarks.
Idiotic. Some honourable Leavers on PB.com, such as Kle and Richard Tyndall, have already condemned this 'EU = Adolf' offensiveness in the strongest terms. Why the likes of IDS and Rees-Mogg have sought to pile in and add fuel to the fire is beyond me. The conceit is indefensible, and attempting to do so just looks arrogant and twisted. The serious Leavers must despair of their leadership.
Believe me, I value your view on my honourability as much as a piece of navel lint, but I must point out it seems not to have occurred to you that people might find validity in Boris's comparison that they don't find in Ken's. They are, after all, different comparisons.
Boris's point was much more relevant - Yes Minister made a very similar gag about the Napoleon prize 'for the statesman who's made the biggest contribution to european unity since napoleon; that is if you don't count Hitler' - so his use of Hitler to make a point was not as out of left field or immediately offensive. But he is supposed to be a smart man, he knows how these things get boiled down to a headline, so either he is an idiot, or he wanted this reaction as presumably he feels the additional publicity of the story will outweigh the capital Remain will make of it by extrapolating his point to absurdity (which is something that happens on all sides of a debate, and neither can whinge about happening in this case with any credibility).
I stick with my original reaction - he's dog whistled Chamberlain at Cameron, pointed out how many feel about German dominance of the EU and this must be predicated on Leave private polling. The DT wouldn't knock BoJo.
Which part of the "Ken Hitler Lesson" have LEAVE not learned....
Senior Tories who are backing a 'Brexit' have rallied to support Boris Johnson after the former London Mayor compared the European Union to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House of Commons, former Cabinet ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Lamont, as well as Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, defended Mr Johnson’s remarks.
Idiotic. Some honourable Leavers on PB.com, such as Kle and Richard Tyndall, have already condemned this 'EU = Adolf' offensiveness in the strongest terms. Why the likes of IDS and Rees-Mogg have sought to pile in and add fuel to the fire is beyond me. The conceit is indefensible, and attempting to do so just looks arrogant and twisted. The serious Leavers must despair of their leadership.
Believe me, I value your view on my honourability as much as a piece of navel lint, but I must point out it seems not to have occurred to you that people might find validity in Boris's comparison that they don't find in Ken's. They are, after all, different comparisons.
If they do then they're nuts.
Boris has just implied that Hitler wanted to recreate the 'golden age of peace and prosperity under the Romans' but that it ended badly.
On balance I think it's Boris who's shown himself up.
Nuts, or just an opinion different to yours, but not dishonourable.
Which part of the "Ken Hitler Lesson" have LEAVE not learned....
Senior Tories who are backing a 'Brexit' have rallied to support Boris Johnson after the former London Mayor compared the European Union to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House of Commons, former Cabinet ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Lamont, as well as Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, defended Mr Johnson’s remarks.
Idiotic. Some honourable Leavers on PB.com, such as Kle and Richard Tyndall, have already condemned this 'EU = Adolf' offensiveness in the strongest terms. Why the likes of IDS and Rees-Mogg have sought to pile in and add fuel to the fire is beyond me. The conceit is indefensible, and attempting to do so just looks arrogant and twisted. The serious Leavers must despair of their leadership.
Believe me, I value your view on my honourability as much as a piece of navel lint, but I must point out it seems not to have occurred to you that people might find validity in Boris's comparison that they don't find in Ken's. They are, after all, different comparisons.
Boris's point was much more relevant - Yes Minister made a very similar gag about the Napoleon prize 'for the statesman who's made the biggest contribution to european unity since napoleon; that is if you don't count Hitler' - so his use of Hitler to make a point was not as out of left field or immediately offensive. But he is supposed to be a smart man, he knows how these things get boiled down to a headline, so either he is an idiot, or he wanted this reaction as presumably he feels the additional publicity of the story will outweigh the capital Remain will make of it by extrapolating his point to absurdity (which is something that happens on all sides of a debate, and neither can whinge about happening in this case with any credibility).
But that is a question of tactics. What Stark Dawning is saying everyone should be as horrified by this as they were by Ken, or they're not honourable.
Personally I don't think his words were as bad as Ken's, which mangled historical facts more in addition to suggesting it was only later Hitler 'went mad', but they weren't great - a little too vague and open to similar interpretation (though of course Hitler's idea of a golden age of peace and prosperity would be a genocidal nightmare for anyone non-germanic and the peace of the grave).
Which part of the "Ken Hitler Lesson" have LEAVE not learned....
Senior Tories who are backing a 'Brexit' have rallied to support Boris Johnson after the former London Mayor compared the European Union to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House of Commons, former Cabinet ministers Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Lamont, as well as Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, defended Mr Johnson’s remarks.
Idiotic. Some honourable Leavers on PB.com, such as Kle and Richard Tyndall, have already condemned this 'EU = Adolf' offensiveness in the strongest terms. Why the likes of IDS and Rees-Mogg have sought to pile in and add fuel to the fire is beyond me. The conceit is indefensible, and attempting to do so just looks arrogant and twisted. The serious Leavers must despair of their leadership.
Believe me, I value your view on my honourability as much as a piece of navel lint, but I must point out it seems not to have occurred to you that people might find validity in Boris's comparison that they don't find in Ken's. They are, after all, different comparisons.
If I understand Plato's post below correctly, Boris thinks Hitler was trying to recreate a golden age of prosperity. So you are right: they are different comparisons. Unfortunately, Boris's comparison is actually worse than Ken's.
Do you or William Glen think Hitler didn't want prosperity? Surely that's exactly what he wanted, just on his own terms.
Odd. When Red Ken cited the supposed endorsement of Hitler to discredit a concept he didn't like, there was a near unanimity of fizzing condemnation from the PB Leave community. Boris employs an identical tactic and not a peep. Puzzling.
Its a safe assumption that any politician who mentions Hitler, or WWII generally, has exposed themselves as someone of varying degrees of ridiculousness and/or contemptibility.
I haven't noticed anyone here actually reading it.
As is typical for Mr Johnson, he doesn’t simply examine the EU referendum in terms of weighing the economic case, the impact of immigration or even the vital security arguments. He takes a rather longer view of the question.
“The whole thing began with the Roman Empire,” he says. “I wrote a book on this subject, and I think it’s probably right. The truth is that the history of the last couple of thousand years has been broadly repeated attempts by various people or institutions – in a Freudian way – to rediscover the lost childhood of Europe, this golden age of peace and prosperity under the Romans, by trying to unify it. Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out, and it ends tragically,” he says.
“The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods. But fundamentally what it is lacking is the eternal problem, which is that there is no underlying loyalty to the idea of Europe. There is no single authority that anybody respects or understands. That is causing this massive democratic void.”
You see, what you're expecting me to do there is to read what was actually written instead of the headline or how it was reported. Whilst laudable, it requires skills entirely unused in this debate (cf Cameron & WWIII)
Quite. The poster who banged on about Dave's WAR!!! ad infinitum, even though it turned out to be a blatant invention, now wants us to embrace the glories of forensic textual analysis. You couldn't make it up etc.
Boris's argument is: * Rome built a superstate * Napoleon tried to build a superstate * Hitler tried to build a superstate * EU tries to build a superstate * Therefore EU=Hitler
That's not actually logic, as illustrated thus: * Rome build roads * Napoleon built roads * Hitler built roads * Truman built roads * Therefore Truman=Hitler
I'm sure somebody more industrious than I will be able to google the logical fallacy here. But I have work to do today, so laters, peeps.
Remain have lined up a series of heavyweight commentators from all round the World.
The Brexit reply has been
SHUT UP!
SACK HIM!
HITLER!
Only one of these campaigns is exhibiting signs of panic...
Remain's campaign seems to be shouting "£4,300" at the top of their voices, and if anyone points out how fabricated it is, to respond by shouting louder. The very crux of the Remain campaign is a big lie, and every Remain politician backing the number is a disgrace.
Comments
I will post a rag to clean your left leg Jack.
Either they are dumb enough to actually believe the comparison or they have done some private polling and found the public are dumb enough to believe the comparison. Neither is a reassuring idea.
Cameron doing a dirty deal to exchange Trade Union Bill concessions for £1.7m in Remain goodies was the lowest point for me. And these people sneer at Neil Hamilton's cash-for-questions brown envelop.
'Private Polling" gave the SNP a nasty shock......
Remain have lined up a series of heavyweight commentators from all round the World.
The Brexit reply has been
SHUT UP!
SACK HIM!
HITLER!
Only one of these campaigns is exhibiting signs of panic...
This was their season to come top of the London clubs...
Until next time of course.
Post-race piece may be delayed due to triumphant cackling.
If Boris had done it in an interview, I could have understand it as a slip of a tongue, but he's done it in an article, alarm bells should have been going off.
I haven't noticed anyone here actually reading it.
People might start asking themselves why that clever fellow Johnson thinks the EU is an oppressive pan-European regime.
1) STFU
2) If pressed, say the analogy is not helpful and move on
3) If asked to condemn, say its not a form of words I would have used, but the overall point that the EU is undemocratic is valid, and move on to that.
4) WHATEVER YOU DO....do not repeat the 'H-word'.
You want the whole thing out of the news Cycle as quickly as possible - goodness knows your opponents will be stoking the flames - so why pour petrol on them.....
Which, BTW, for all I know, maybe he does. I mean look who owns the Evening Standard.
It was rather tense watching the last 20 laps or so. I was relaxed at first, thinking Raikkonen would pass but a third or so odds for 2nd was still great (circa 80/1). Then I thought he might win it.
Then he did
Its not as though an ex-Mayor of London hasn't got into trouble over using it recently has he?
Boris is (allegedly) highly intelligent. It may be that he's just not very smart....
twitter.com/IconsOfSteam/status/731848909824331777
Pretending to agree with someone like that is just not an option for me, but I try to be polite, especially in someone else's home. Do you argue, point out mistakes, try to convert them, but maybe embarrass your host by a possibly furious dispute at his table? Or do you reckon that hey, who cares what some random person thinks, you're not going to change their minds anyway, and offer meaningless remarks like "How very interesting"?
Including the Verstappen tip, you'd be up £2,499
But shouldn't all this be taken into account when the pollsters weigh by previous voting ?
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/spain-post-race-analysis-2016.html
Not a fight worth having.
The only time someone said something I disliked so much I had to disagree vehemently wasn't really political, it was a general discussion about immigration, and they expressed their distaste for n-word music.
Hoping a team as dire as Villa somehow nick a point off Arsenal to save us.
x 40 years.+
My goal isn't to convert anyone but just to get them to shut up. I think it's uncivilised to preach about politics in a social setting. If someone is doing it I just want them to be quiet.
It is why he will become more of a liability -or at least less of an asset - to Leave as time passes.
Being a lot more conflict averse in real life than I am here in my keyboard warrior mode, I look for common ground and focus the discussion on that. There usually is some, so it's not particularly difficult. If I were being more assertive, I might still look for common ground, but argue more points.
Notrights invariably expose themselves by what comes out of their mouths.
A very close friend of mine for many years was shocked and stunned when I disclosed by chance that I was interested in animal rights recently (I didn't say just how much). It actually nearly finished our friendship such was his hostility to people who show compassion to animals. I had to step back and accept that our friendship has different points of connection...cricket, films, books, work, philosophy and moral subjects, art and personal issues, and many more.
Boris has just implied that Hitler wanted to recreate the 'golden age of peace and prosperity under the Romans' but that it ended badly.
On balance I think it's Boris who's shown himself up.
I'm actually fairly relaxed about immigration and I don't believe for one moment that the EU guarantees our economic security.
But for me, self-governance is more important than everything else (plus we get to see Cameron and Osborne eviscerated from a LEAVE vote) But I'm in the minority. Most peole will vote on economic security against immigration.
Irrelevant.
I reckon Trump is one major Clinton scandal away from becoming POTUS.
Where I think his style of politics would go horribly awry is if he becomes Prime Minister.
I don't think there is anyone who I can completely openly discuss my views with. PbCOM is as close as it gets to finding out what I really think, and then you don't get the full picture.
My closest friend is a raving right winger..... Another is a leading Marxist. I recently lost a long cherished friend- a diehard Jewist Zionist over a rash comment I made over Israel. I thought he could take it, and I bitterly regret the argument, but I cannot take it back.
https://twitter.com/PlatoSays/status/731864316970852353
Wirral West: Con 43.9 Lab 39
Birmingham Edgobastan: Lab 40.9 Con 40.2
Wirral South: Lab 37.5 Con 32.7 LD 17.8
Birmingham Nortfield: Lab 39.5 Con 35.4 UKIP 15.8
Coventry South: Lab 44.3 Con 37.7
Bolton NE: Lab 39.7 Con 31.8 UKIP 18.7
Dewsbury: Lab 42.6 Con 35.5
Wolverhampton SW: Lab 46.6 Con 37.6
Newcastle under Lyme: Lab 39 Con 29 UKIP 14
Coventry NW: Lab 44.5 Con 31.6
Dudley North: Lab 43.7% UKIP 28.8% Con 25.9%
Bury South: Lab 45.6 Con 27.4
Bristol East: LAb 42 Con 24.9
Halifax: Lab 46.5 Con 28.4
Batley & Spen: Lab 42% Con 23.7% UKIP 15.7%
Wakefield: Lab 44.5 Con 25.7
Southampton Test: Lab 44.3 Con 23.6
Walsall North: Lab 47.3 Con 24.8
* Rome built a superstate
* Napoleon tried to build a superstate
* Hitler tried to build a superstate
* EU tries to build a superstate
* Therefore EU=Hitler
That's not actually logic, as illustrated thus:
* Rome build roads
* Napoleon built roads
* Hitler built roads
* Truman built roads
* Therefore Truman=Hitler
I'm sure somebody more industrious than I will be able to google the logical fallacy here. But I have work to do today, so laters, peeps.
LEAVE 330
REMAIN 298
DK 5
NI 17
Leave majority of 10