Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Vladimir Putin link looks set to dog the Trump campaign

2

Comments

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited August 2016

    Out of interest which of the US pollsters work to the same standards as our own?

    The problem I see is that Trump is not a normal Republican candidate so as with the referendum it makes it difficult to use past demographic data as I suspect Trump will attract a different demographic to the previous GOP candidates along with a whole slew of people who haven't bothered to vote for ages.

    There is a huge amount of demographic data from the primaries and 538 has an impressive amount of data in their pollster ratings.

    It's certainly true that Trump is attracting better numbers of WWC but it is a declining force and clearly tribal GOP voters will opt for Trump. However he has three significant problem areas :

    1. College educated whites. Clinton is matching Trump
    2. Women .... nuff said.
    3. Hispanics - Trump is tanking here. Likely to hold around half Romney's 27% figure.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Bild BREAKING that armed man covered in blood holed up in restaurant in #Saarbrücken https://t.co/OxiCPAqFia
  • surbiton said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    If Putin and Russia are so bad, why didn't Obama do something when Russia annexed Crimea?

    What specific something do you have in mind?
    Send in the troops. I'm not an apologist for Putin and Russia, but I find it galling when the likes of Obama and Clinton play the Russia card yet they themselves have appeased the Russians. It was the same with Syria and chemical weapons.

    I don't have a problem with a non-interventionist foreign policy. I have a real problem with a virtue signalling foreign policy.
    Can any of our military-minded posters tell us what would have been involved in dislodging the Russian army from Crimea?
    We might have finally found a use for the Trident subs.

    Sanctions have been reasonably effective, and are as far as action can reasonably go.
    You mean nuke them ? When over 80% of the population are ethnic Russians. Crimea was only given over to the Ukraine in 1954 simply to increase the "Russian" population in Ukraine.

    You should only worry about the Tatars who are just innocent victims every time.
    I was using humour to suggest that a military response to the Crimean crisis was not appropriate as likely to lead to escalation and potentially nuclear escalation. Sanctions are fine.

    Russian backed separitists in sovereign countries Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine have a common theme. Putin is a leader with form. Trump likes him.
    If only the UK government, starting with Wilson before UDI had been prepared to intervene militarily in Rhodesia/zimbabwe ike Putin has stood up for ethnic russians in former USSR states, we might have avoided a lot of misery.
    Are you suggesting that we should have militarily deposed the regime of Ian Smith or reinforced it? The latter would have been closer to Putins support for ethnic Russians.
    Wilson went over there and specifically ruled out any military intervention if Smith declared UDI.

    If he had promised a military response then Smith- who was not personally keen on the idea may have been able to persuade the Rhodesian cabinet. Similarly if Wilson had backed up the rather good offers of normalisation made on HMS Fearless/Tiger with the threat of invasion if the offer was refused.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,296
    CD13 said:

    Being simplistic, and politics is easier to understand that way, Putin is a Russian nationalist.

    He stands up for Russian interests, not those of someone else. Trump regards himself as an American nationalist standing up for American interests - that's his brand. So he regards Putin as being like-minded, and as long as it doesn't clash with his own and American interests, he's OK.

    You may not agree with Trump (and I don't), but you don't need to bring in conspiracy theories. You can leave that to Hillary.

    Spot on. Just for the avoidance of doubt I wouldn't have advocated military action over Crimea, not least because as has been pointed out it is mostly Russian anyway.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,894

    Mr. Felix, the media didn't report the Munich shooter shouting 'Allahu Akbar' and stuck with the loner/mental illness line. The mental illness line was deployed for the Russell Square murderer, though it's now thought increasingly likely he was another terrorist [now it's faded from being front and centre news].

    Now there's a report of an attack which would appear to be a slam-dunk case of terrorism being reported as 'thought of' being terrorism. If the chap hadn't actually shouted anything, I suspect it'd likely be reported as mental illness.

    I hope you're right. I suspect you're not.

    How do you stop a silly or deranged man shouting something irrespective of whether he believes it?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,716
    JackW said:

    HYUFD said:

    Even Goldwater and McGovern won at least a state despite losing by over 20% and Trump is nowhere near that level of deficit. He is bound to win South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Wyoming and Idaho regardless of what happens

    A Clinton landslide would see South Carolina fall and in doing so give her a clean sweep of the east coast with Georgia and North Carolina linking up and giving Trump some of the South and Mid West :

    http://www.270towin.com/



    Romney won South Carolina by 11% in 2012, considering he lost by over 3% nationally, Hillary would need to lead Trump by 14-15% nationwide to have a chance of winning the Palmetto state
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    surbiton said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    If Putin and Russia are so bad, why didn't Obama do something when Russia annexed Crimea?

    What specific something do you have in mind?
    Send in the troops. I'm not an apologist for Putin and Russia, but I find it galling when the likes of Obama and Clinton play the Russia card yet they themselves have appeased the Russians. It was the same with Syria and chemical weapons.

    I don't have a problem with a non-interventionist foreign policy. I have a real problem with a virtue signalling foreign policy.
    Can any of our military-minded posters tell us what would have been involved in dislodging the Russian army from Crimea?
    We might have finally found a use for the Trident subs.

    Sanctions have been reasonably effective, and are as far as action can reasonably go.
    You mean nuke them ? When over 80% of the population are ethnic Russians. Crimea was only given over to the Ukraine in 1954 simply to increase the "Russian" population in Ukraine.

    You should only worry about the Tatars who are just innocent victims every time.
    I was using humour to suggest that a military response to the Crimean crisis was not appropriate as likely to lead to escalation and potentially nuclear escalation. Sanctions are fine.

    Russian backed separitists in sovereign countries Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine have a common theme. Putin is a leader with form. Trump likes him.
    If only the UK government, starting with Wilson before UDI had been prepared to intervene militarily in Rhodesia/zimbabwe ike Putin has stood up for ethnic russians in former USSR states, we might have avoided a lot of misery.
    Are you suggesting that we should have militarily deposed the regime of Ian Smith or reinforced it? The latter would have been closer to Putins support for ethnic Russians.
    We should not forget that the vast majority of Zimbabweans were / are black. Putin intervened on behalf of the overwhelming majority. Is Paul suggesting that we should have intervened to shore a small minority ?
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    surbiton said:

    Ponder this too. The turnout at the last 4 presidential elections was.

    2012. 57.5%
    2008. 62.3%
    2004. 60.4%
    2000. 54.2%

    If a quarter of those non voters come out of the woodwork and vote Trump then Hillary is toast.

    Why would they necessarily vote Trump ? Some might come out simply to vote against him, not for Hillary.
    Yes, and non voters might have come out to vote Remain.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    HYUFD said:

    JackW said:

    HYUFD said:

    Even Goldwater and McGovern won at least a state despite losing by over 20% and Trump is nowhere near that level of deficit. He is bound to win South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Wyoming and Idaho regardless of what happens

    A Clinton landslide would see South Carolina fall and in doing so give her a clean sweep of the east coast with Georgia and North Carolina linking up and giving Trump some of the South and Mid West :

    http://www.270towin.com/



    Romney won South Carolina by 11% in 2012, considering he lost by over 3% nationally, Hillary would need to lead Trump by 14-15% nationwide to have a chance of winning the Palmetto state
    Which is not impossible. Nixon beat McGovern 63 - 37.. 57-43 could do. Trump campaign will likely implode by late October.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,716

    surbiton said:

    HYUFD said:

    With Reuters yesterday having Trump just 3% behind Hillary and LAT less than 1% behind he is certainly not going to back out now, especially as on that polling he is doing better than the 3.8% margin Romney lost to Obama. Hillary's convention bounce has clearly started to fade

    Ha, ha ha ! Ha, ha ha ! Ha, ha ha ! Ha, ha ha ! Ha, ha ha ! Ha, ha ha !
    Its like watching brexit referendum all over again.

    Out of interest which of the US pollsters work to the same standards as our own?

    The problem I see is that Trump is not a normal Republican candidate so as with the referendum it makes it difficult to use past demographic data as I suspect Trump will attract a different demographic to the previous GOP candidates along with a whole slew of people who haven't bothered to vote for ages.
    Yougov is the only one I know who poll both
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    HYUFD said:

    Romney won South Carolina by 11% in 2012, considering he lost by over 3% nationally, Hillary would need to lead Trump by 14-15% nationwide to have a chance of winning the Palmetto state

    That's why it's called a landslide.

    Given the demographics in the state I'd say closer to 10-12%.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    surbiton said:

    Ponder this too. The turnout at the last 4 presidential elections was.

    2012. 57.5%
    2008. 62.3%
    2004. 60.4%
    2000. 54.2%

    If a quarter of those non voters come out of the woodwork and vote Trump then Hillary is toast.

    Why would they necessarily vote Trump ? Some might come out simply to vote against him, not for Hillary.
    Yes, and non voters might have come out to vote Remain.
    Yes, and we are paying for it big time !
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Sandpit said:

    Ponder this too. The turnout at the last 4 presidential elections was.

    2012. 57.5%
    2008. 62.3%
    2004. 60.4%
    2000. 54.2%

    If a quarter of those non voters come out of the woodwork and vote Trump then Hillary is toast.

    This is why I'm a little wary of betting too much on the US election. It not impossible that, for all the screaming about him in the media and at best apathy from Establishment Republicans, Trump is quietly building up a coalition of the dissatisfied big enough to win the election.
    But he did not do that to win the primary. Trump voters were completely typical Republican primary voters.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    Ponder this too. The turnout at the last 4 presidential elections was.

    2012. 57.5%
    2008. 62.3%
    2004. 60.4%
    2000. 54.2%

    If a quarter of those non voters come out of the woodwork and vote Trump then Hillary is toast.

    Why would they necessarily vote Trump ? Some might come out simply to vote against him, not for Hillary.
    Yes, and non voters might have come out to vote Remain.
    Yes, and we are paying for it big time !
    You hope.
  • Moses_ said:

    Sky news

    Oscar Pistorius has been treated at a private hospital in Pretoria after suffering injuries in jail.

    "Fell out of bed".

    ie does not want to get beaten up again for being a grass.
  • tlg86 said:

    CD13 said:

    Being simplistic, and politics is easier to understand that way, Putin is a Russian nationalist.

    He stands up for Russian interests, not those of someone else. Trump regards himself as an American nationalist standing up for American interests - that's his brand. So he regards Putin as being like-minded, and as long as it doesn't clash with his own and American interests, he's OK.

    You may not agree with Trump (and I don't), but you don't need to bring in conspiracy theories. You can leave that to Hillary.

    Spot on. Just for the avoidance of doubt I wouldn't have advocated military action over Crimea, not least because as has been pointed out it is mostly Russian anyway.
    Indeed. I don't recall any international outrage when India invaded Goa.

    And how many countries have sanctions against China over the brutal and repressive occupation of Tibet.
  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited August 2016

    Moses_ said:

    Sky news

    Oscar Pistorius has been treated at a private hospital in Pretoria after suffering injuries in jail.

    "Fell out of bed".

    ie does not want to get beaten up again for being a grass.
    He is obviously getting special treatment.

    If he hadn't been he would have been ravished by dozens if not hundreds of inmates by now.

    Non celebrity whites put in the cells overnight for minor offences tend to come out the next morning having experienced half a dozen new 'lovers'. A lot of black people are victims too. It is endemic.

    One of the unfortunate legacies of Apartheid repression.

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6288618
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,593
    Alistair said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ponder this too. The turnout at the last 4 presidential elections was.

    2012. 57.5%
    2008. 62.3%
    2004. 60.4%
    2000. 54.2%

    If a quarter of those non voters come out of the woodwork and vote Trump then Hillary is toast.

    This is why I'm a little wary of betting too much on the US election. It not impossible that, for all the screaming about him in the media and at best apathy from Establishment Republicans, Trump is quietly building up a coalition of the dissatisfied big enough to win the election.
    But he did not do that to win the primary. Trump voters were completely typical Republican primary voters.
    Indeed, a large number of regular Republican voters will also vote for him, even if the Establishment don't.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,768
    Oscar Pistorius has been treated at a private hospital in Pretoria after suffering injuries in jail.

    Should have legged it.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Ali David Sonboly went on a weapons training holiday to Iran with his father before embarking on his killing spree, it is claimed today.

    A fortnight after the 18-year-old lured young people to a McDonald's restaurant in Munich and killed nine of them before taking his own life it has emerged that the German-Iranian youth travelled with his father Masoud to Iran in December last year.

    The news magazine Focus said that he underwent 'weapons training' while there which included firing guns, although it was not specified where.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3725081/Teenage-Munich-killer-went-weapons-training-holiday-Iran-father-murdering-nine-gun-rampage.html
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited August 2016
    Alistair said:

    Sandpit said:

    Ponder this too. The turnout at the last 4 presidential elections was.

    2012. 57.5%
    2008. 62.3%
    2004. 60.4%
    2000. 54.2%

    If a quarter of those non voters come out of the woodwork and vote Trump then Hillary is toast.

    This is why I'm a little wary of betting too much on the US election. It not impossible that, for all the screaming about him in the media and at best apathy from Establishment Republicans, Trump is quietly building up a coalition of the dissatisfied big enough to win the election.
    But he did not do that to win the primary. Trump voters were completely typical Republican primary voters.
    Completely typical newly Republican ex-Democrats;
    http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/05/18/more-democrats-crossed-over-to-vote-republican-in-ohio-primary.html
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,075
    King Cole, you don't think a man shouting "Allahu Akbar" whilst attacking police is indicative of terrorism?

    Miss Plato, fair enough. I used to go on holiday to Wales and Devon as a child, although I was clearly deprived as we never once trained with firearms.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Open primaries give interesting opportunities for devilment .... not unknown here with the PB £3 Tories4Jezza .... :smile:
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited August 2016

    I used to go on holiday to Wales and Devon as a child, although I was clearly deprived as we never once trained with firearms.

    As per yesterday morning did you mean your depraved childhood rather than "deprived" ? .... :smiley:

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,075
    Mr. W, nonsense. I'm so virtuous I make Buddha look like Emperor Palpatine.
  • JackW said:

    Open primaries give interesting opportunities for devilment .... not unknown here with the PB £3 Tories4Jezza .... :smile:
    It's a pity that your unfathomable tendresse for Mrs Clinton is going to soil your Arse.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    King Cole, you don't think a man shouting "Allahu Akbar" whilst attacking police is indicative of terrorism?

    Miss Plato, fair enough. I used to go on holiday to Wales and Devon as a child, although I was clearly deprived as we never once trained with firearms.

    I learned to shoot with air pistols and rifles. We used to target practice on chunks of cheese! And sometimes in my brother's bedroom - cheese was excellent, it absorbed the pellets or darts, wasn't noisy and easily available from the fridge :wink:

    I'm sure Social Services would have put us all in care if they knew.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,716
    JackW said:

    HYUFD said:

    Romney won South Carolina by 11% in 2012, considering he lost by over 3% nationally, Hillary would need to lead Trump by 14-15% nationwide to have a chance of winning the Palmetto state

    That's why it's called a landslide.

    Given the demographics in the state I'd say closer to 10-12%.
    Even then most polls this weekend are not showing that large a Hillary lead and certainly not suggesting he would not win any states at all
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,450
    Does anybody in the US still care about Russia?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,716
    surbiton said:

    HYUFD said:

    JackW said:

    HYUFD said:

    Even Goldwater and McGovern won at least a state despite losing by over 20% and Trump is nowhere near that level of deficit. He is bound to win South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Wyoming and Idaho regardless of what happens

    A Clinton landslide would see South Carolina fall and in doing so give her a clean sweep of the east coast with Georgia and North Carolina linking up and giving Trump some of the South and Mid West :

    http://www.270towin.com/



    Romney won South Carolina by 11% in 2012, considering he lost by over 3% nationally, Hillary would need to lead Trump by 14-15% nationwide to have a chance of winning the Palmetto state
    Which is not impossible. Nixon beat McGovern 63 - 37.. 57-43 could do. Trump campaign will likely implode by late October.
    A lot of ifs there and if Trump wins the debates anything can happen
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,593
    edited August 2016
    Moeen Ali wasting no time in adding substantially to the overnight score :)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,075
    Miss Plato, I had a blowpipe made at school (just a few feet of a narrow metal pipe). Worked pretty well.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Mr. W, nonsense. I'm so virtuous I make Buddha look like Emperor Palpatine.

    Virtuous and "Morris Dancer" in the same sentence surely heralds the demise of PB as a place for serious commentary .... :smiley:
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    PlatoSaid said:

    Bild BREAKING that armed man covered in blood holed up in restaurant in #Saarbrücken https://t.co/OxiCPAqFia

    These people with mental issues - whatever will we do to help them.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,593
    Oh well, no century for Bairstow.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    It's a pity that your unfathomable tendresse for Mrs Clinton is going to soil your Arse.

    I have no "tendresse" for Clinton. She is a poor candidate made to look good by Trump being a comb over short of the full beehive hairdo.

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Sandpit said:

    Oh well, no century for Bairstow.

    England should be bowling now.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,386
    edited August 2016

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    If Putin and Russia are so bad, why didn't Obama do something when Russia annexed Crimea?

    What specific something do you have in mind?
    Send in the troops. I'm not an apologist for Putin and Russia, but I find it galling when the likes of Obama and Clinton play the Russia card yet they themselves have appeased the Russians. It was the same with Syria and chemical weapons.

    I don't have a problem with a non-interventionist foreign policy. I have a real problem with a virtue signalling foreign policy.
    Can any of our military-minded posters tell us what would have been involved in dislodging the Russian army from Crimea?
    Give them a chance to get really comfy in their armchairs.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    If Putin and Russia are so bad, why didn't Obama do something when Russia annexed Crimea?

    What specific something do you have in mind?
    Send in the troops. I'm not an apologist for Putin and Russia, but I find it galling when the likes of Obama and Clinton play the Russia card yet they themselves have appeased the Russians. It was the same with Syria and chemical weapons.

    I don't have a problem with a non-interventionist foreign policy. I have a real problem with a virtue signalling foreign policy.
    Can any of our military-minded posters tell us what would have been involved in dislodging the Russian army from Crimea?
    Give them a chance to get really comfy in their armchairs.
    That's right, wait till the Russians got complacent would be the key.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,593
    GeoffM said:

    Sandpit said:

    Oh well, no century for Bairstow.

    England should be bowling now.
    Yep. They should leave a target that the Pakistan players think is gettable.

    Commentators saying they should declare now.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,296
    Sandpit said:

    GeoffM said:

    Sandpit said:

    Oh well, no century for Bairstow.

    England should be bowling now.
    Yep. They should leave a target that the Pakistan players think is gettable.

    Commentators saying they should declare now.
    They should have had a bowl at them last night.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 52,119

    King Cole, you don't think a man shouting "Allahu Akbar" whilst attacking police is indicative of terrorism?

    Miss Plato, fair enough. I used to go on holiday to Wales and Devon as a child, although I was clearly deprived as we never once trained with firearms.

    He was undoubtedly shouting "Alan's Snackbar!".

    This was a shop selling the world's finest bacon butties, outside Glasgow railway station. It's closure on health and safety grounds has led to widespread psychosis in the bacon appreciating community.

    Something Must Be Done!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,593
    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    GeoffM said:

    Sandpit said:

    Oh well, no century for Bairstow.

    England should be bowling now.
    Yep. They should leave a target that the Pakistan players think is gettable.

    Commentators saying they should declare now.
    They should have had a bowl at them last night.
    Don't disagree, a couple of overs would have been enough.

    Finally, Capt. Cook declares.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    GeoffM said:

    Sandpit said:

    Oh well, no century for Bairstow.

    England should be bowling now.
    Yep. They should leave a target that the Pakistan players think is gettable.

    Commentators saying they should declare now.
    They should have had a bowl at them last night.
    Don't disagree, a couple of overs would have been enough.

    Finally, Capt. Cook declares.
    Yes, finally! 84 overs left hmmmm
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,894

    King Cole, you don't think a man shouting "Allahu Akbar" whilst attacking police is indicative of terrorism?

    Miss Plato, fair enough. I used to go on holiday to Wales and Devon as a child, although I was clearly deprived as we never once trained with firearms.

    I think it probably is, but indicative is not definitive.
  • GeoffM said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    GeoffM said:

    Sandpit said:

    Oh well, no century for Bairstow.

    England should be bowling now.
    Yep. They should leave a target that the Pakistan players think is gettable.

    Commentators saying they should declare now.
    They should have had a bowl at them last night.
    Don't disagree, a couple of overs would have been enough.

    Finally, Capt. Cook declares.
    Yes, finally! 84 overs left hmmmm
    84 overs if we bowl at a proper 90 a day rate. When did that last happen?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,894
    And England have declared.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    edited August 2016

    GeoffM said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    GeoffM said:

    Sandpit said:

    Oh well, no century for Bairstow.

    England should be bowling now.
    Yep. They should leave a target that the Pakistan players think is gettable.

    Commentators saying they should declare now.
    They should have had a bowl at them last night.
    Don't disagree, a couple of overs would have been enough.

    Finally, Capt. Cook declares.
    Yes, finally! 84 overs left hmmmm
    84 overs if we bowl at a proper 90 a day rate. When did that last happen?
    Good point well made.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Umm

    https://www.rt.com/news/354857-isis-jihadist-released-belgium/

    ‘Bureaucratic mess’ sees Belgian jihadist freed after 4 months of 15yr sentence
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,386
    edited August 2016
    Alistair said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    If Putin and Russia are so bad, why didn't Obama do something when Russia annexed Crimea?

    What specific something do you have in mind?
    Send in the troops. I'm not an apologist for Putin and Russia, but I find it galling when the likes of Obama and Clinton play the Russia card yet they themselves have appeased the Russians. It was the same with Syria and chemical weapons.

    I don't have a problem with a non-interventionist foreign policy. I have a real problem with a virtue signalling foreign policy.
    Can any of our military-minded posters tell us what would have been involved in dislodging the Russian army from Crimea?
    Give them a chance to get really comfy in their armchairs.
    That's right, wait till the Russians got complacent would be the key.
    I was meaning more the PB military-minded posters, but your take works too :)
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658

    GeoffM said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    GeoffM said:

    Sandpit said:

    Oh well, no century for Bairstow.

    England should be bowling now.
    Yep. They should leave a target that the Pakistan players think is gettable.

    Commentators saying they should declare now.
    They should have had a bowl at them last night.
    Don't disagree, a couple of overs would have been enough.

    Finally, Capt. Cook declares.
    Yes, finally! 84 overs left hmmmm
    84 overs if we bowl at a proper 90 a day rate. When did that last happen?
    No cutoff on the final day
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    GeoffM said:

    Sandpit said:

    Oh well, no century for Bairstow.

    England should be bowling now.
    Yep. They should leave a target that the Pakistan players think is gettable.

    Commentators saying they should declare now.
    They should have had a bowl at them last night.
    If they wanted to lose i suppose. Pitch is as flat as a pancake.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    Alistair said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    If Putin and Russia are so bad, why didn't Obama do something when Russia annexed Crimea?

    What specific something do you have in mind?
    Send in the troops. I'm not an apologist for Putin and Russia, but I find it galling when the likes of Obama and Clinton play the Russia card yet they themselves have appeased the Russians. It was the same with Syria and chemical weapons.

    I don't have a problem with a non-interventionist foreign policy. I have a real problem with a virtue signalling foreign policy.
    Can any of our military-minded posters tell us what would have been involved in dislodging the Russian army from Crimea?
    Give them a chance to get really comfy in their armchairs.
    That's right, wait till the Russians got complacent would be the key.
    I was meaning more the PB military-minded posters, but your take works too :)
    European NATO couldn't fight its way out of a paper bag and the US isn't interested. Case closed.

    One of the issues with an EU army is the danger that its foreign policy mouth writes cheques its armed forces can't cash.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited August 2016
    Sources in the inquiry ... Goddard quit after there was a “terminal” loss of confidence by her legal team.

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/mutinous-lawyers-toppledhead-of-sex-abuse-inquiry-25t55xxs8

  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312
    Why would you want to belong to a club where one of the members is ignoring gunrunners selling weapons to other members' terrorists, because the weapons are not being used on its patch?

    http://news.sky.com/story/gang-selling-ak-47s-bound-for-western-europe-10526393

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,593
    One down, nine to go!
  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited August 2016
    JackW said:

    Out of interest which of the US pollsters work to the same standards as our own?

    The problem I see is that Trump is not a normal Republican candidate so as with the referendum it makes it difficult to use past demographic data as I suspect Trump will attract a different demographic to the previous GOP candidates along with a whole slew of people who haven't bothered to vote for ages.

    There is a huge amount of demographic data from the primaries and 538 has an impressive amount of data in their pollster ratings.

    It's certainly true that Trump is attracting better numbers of WWC but it is a declining force and clearly tribal GOP voters will opt for Trump. However he has three significant problem areas :

    1. College educated whites. Clinton is matching Trump
    2. Women .... nuff said.
    3. Hispanics - Trump is tanking here. Likely to hold around half Romney's 27% figure.
    Thank you for this

    I would guess tbat the women I think are the most important here - in particular the ratio between those who in crude terms vote/identify as Wimmin or as White Working Class Women.

    From the few anecodotes that I have heard Hilary is surprisingly disliked by many women.

    I wouldn't be surprised if not a few voters who normally vote this time either abstain or vote for an independent on the grounds that neither are fit for office. The extent of this as opposed to the extent of voting for Hilary while wearing a clothespeg on their nose will obviously depend on the extent to which they feel Trump is dangerous as opposed to just unfit for office
  • runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536

    Why would you want to belong to a club where one of the members is ignoring gunrunners selling weapons to other members' terrorists, because the weapons are not being used on its patch?

    http://news.sky.com/story/gang-selling-ak-47s-bound-for-western-europe-10526393

    Why would you want to belong to any club including deeply corrupt states like Romania?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,894
    runnymede said:

    Why would you want to belong to a club where one of the members is ignoring gunrunners selling weapons to other members' terrorists, because the weapons are not being used on its patch?

    http://news.sky.com/story/gang-selling-ak-47s-bound-for-western-europe-10526393

    Why would you want to belong to any club including deeply corrupt states like Romania?
    You mean one with a government that rewards its bigger financial supporters with permanent seats in the legislature?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Alistair said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    If Putin and Russia are so bad, why didn't Obama do something when Russia annexed Crimea?

    What specific something do you have in mind?
    Send in the troops. I'm not an apologist for Putin and Russia, but I find it galling when the likes of Obama and Clinton play the Russia card yet they themselves have appeased the Russians. It was the same with Syria and chemical weapons.

    I don't have a problem with a non-interventionist foreign policy. I have a real problem with a virtue signalling foreign policy.
    Can any of our military-minded posters tell us what would have been involved in dislodging the Russian army from Crimea?
    Give them a chance to get really comfy in their armchairs.
    That's right, wait till the Russians got complacent would be the key.
    I was meaning more the PB military-minded posters, but your take works too :)
    There is/was no realistic prospect plan for the US driving the Russian military out of Crimea either when the takeover happened or now.

    No naval presence available and torturously difficult overflight routes. How would US ground troops been get there?
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    runnymede said:

    Why would you want to belong to a club where one of the members is ignoring gunrunners selling weapons to other members' terrorists, because the weapons are not being used on its patch?

    http://news.sky.com/story/gang-selling-ak-47s-bound-for-western-europe-10526393

    Why would you want to belong to any club including deeply corrupt states like Romania?
    You mean one with a government that rewards its bigger financial supporters with permanent seats in the legislature?
    Equating the UK to Romania is just silly. TI put the UK at #10. Romania at #58. Both the A2 countries are well outside European norms for corruption.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,334
    Unsurprised to learn that Putin's propaganda machine has been funding anti-fracking movements in the UK.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,944
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    If Putin and Russia are so bad, why didn't Obama do something when Russia annexed Crimea?

    What specific something do you have in mind?
    Send in the troops. I'm not an apologist for Putin and Russia, but I find it galling when the likes of Obama and Clinton play the Russia card yet they themselves have appeased the Russians. It was the same with Syria and chemical weapons.

    I don't have a problem with a non-interventionist foreign policy. I have a real problem with a virtue signalling foreign policy.
    Can any of our military-minded posters tell us what would have been involved in dislodging the Russian army from Crimea?
    Give them a chance to get really comfy in their armchairs.
    That's right, wait till the Russians got complacent would be the key.
    I was meaning more the PB military-minded posters, but your take works too :)
    There is/was no realistic prospect plan for the US driving the Russian military out of Crimea either when the takeover happened or now.

    No naval presence available and torturously difficult overflight routes. How would US ground troops been get there?
    Crimea wouldn't have welcomed being 'liberated' by the US. It's not a fight that should have been picked and I'm glad it wasn't.
  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited August 2016
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    If Putin and Russia are so bad, why didn't Obama do something when Russia annexed Crimea?

    What specific something do you have in mind?
    Send in the troops. I'm not an apologist for Putin and Russia, but I find it galling when the likes of Obama and Clinton play the Russia card yet they themselves have appeased the Russians. It was the same with Syria and chemical weapons.

    I don't have a problem with a non-interventionist foreign policy. I have a real problem with a virtue signalling foreign policy.
    Can any of our military-minded posters tell us what would have been involved in dislodging the Russian army from Crimea?
    Give them a chance to get really comfy in their armchairs.
    That's right, wait till the Russians got complacent would be the key.
    I was meaning more the PB military-minded posters, but your take works too :)
    There is/was no realistic prospect plan for the US driving the Russian military out of Crimea either when the takeover happened or now.

    No naval presence available and torturously difficult overflight routes. How would US ground troops been get there?
    And what would be the point in trying when the Crimean population overwhelmingly are Russian and wish to be part of Russia?

    Isn't the real disgrace that Ukraine never gave them a referendum on self determination and continue not to allow Odessa, Rostov and Kharkov the same. All those areas are defacto part of Russia but were put in the Ukraine for administrative convenience by the USSR.

    It would be as if the Victorians had put Northumberland and Cumberland in Scotland for administdative convenience and now Salmond and Sturgeon were now lording it over them with glee.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 4,312

    runnymede said:

    Why would you want to belong to a club where one of the members is ignoring gunrunners selling weapons to other members' terrorists, because the weapons are not being used on its patch?

    http://news.sky.com/story/gang-selling-ak-47s-bound-for-western-europe-10526393

    Why would you want to belong to any club including deeply corrupt states like Romania?
    You mean one with a government that rewards its bigger financial supporters with permanent seats in the legislature?
    I seem to recall that we voted that one in, which doesn't mean I support the action you mention although it scarcely seems in the same league. The one I'm referring to, we voted to leave but some still seem reluctant to do so.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    King Cole, you don't think a man shouting "Allahu Akbar" whilst attacking police is indicative of terrorism?

    Miss Plato, fair enough. I used to go on holiday to Wales and Devon as a child, although I was clearly deprived as we never once trained with firearms.

    I think it probably is, but indicative is not definitive.
    I get the impression that if your house was burning down and a gentlemen was seen absconding from the scene carrying a jerry can and a box of matches you would say it was indicative that he was the arsonist, but nothing was definite.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,673
    Blair and IDS voted for war that killed hundreds of thousands, but of course they weren't "terrorists", they're not Muslims!
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    surbiton said:

    HYUFD said:

    JackW said:

    HYUFD said:

    Even Goldwater and McGovern won at least a state despite losing by over 20% and Trump is nowhere near that level of deficit. He is bound to win South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Wyoming and Idaho regardless of what happens

    A Clinton landslide would see South Carolina fall and in doing so give her a clean sweep of the east coast with Georgia and North Carolina linking up and giving Trump some of the South and Mid West :

    http://www.270towin.com/



    Romney won South Carolina by 11% in 2012, considering he lost by over 3% nationally, Hillary would need to lead Trump by 14-15% nationwide to have a chance of winning the Palmetto state
    Which is not impossible. Nixon beat McGovern 63 - 37.. 57-43 could do. Trump campaign will likely implode by late October.
    Nixon actually beat McGovern 60.7% to 37.5%.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Thank you for this

    I would guess tbat the women I think are the most important here - in particular the ratio between those who in crude terms vote/identify as Wimmin or as White Working Class Women.

    From the few anecodotes that I have heard Hilary is surprisingly disliked by many women.

    I wouldn't be surprised if not a few voters who normally vote this time either abstain or vote for an independent on the grounds that neither are fit for office. The extent of this as opposed to the extent of voting for Hilary while wearing a clothespeg on their nose will obviously depend on the extent to which they feel Trump is dangerous as opposed to just unfit for office

    In summary the election comes down to who is least worst. Presently Clinton is winning that contest with something to spare.

    Trump's strength and weakness is that what you see is what you get. For the GOP primaries it served him well but a general election where he has to broaden his appeal is a much more difficult trick to pull off.

    Clearly there is plenty of time for the race to change and I don't doubt we will see many twists and turns ahead but the essential dynamics of the electoral college are clear - Trump needs to pull a number of rabbits out of the hat and then some to get to 270.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    EPG said:

    Blair and IDS voted for war that killed hundreds of thousands, but of course they weren't "terrorists", they're not Muslims!

    I think the key word in your (fatuous) statement is "voted".

    Neither Neville Chamberlain nor FDR initiated any sort of vote at all, and the result was wars killing tens of millions, are they war criminals as well ?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Indigo said:

    EPG said:

    Blair and IDS voted for war that killed hundreds of thousands, but of course they weren't "terrorists", they're not Muslims!

    I think the key word in your (fatuous) statement is "voted".

    Neither Neville Chamberlain nor FDR initiated any sort of vote at all, and the result was wars killing tens of millions, are they war criminals as well ?
    Indigo said:

    EPG said:

    Blair and IDS voted for war that killed hundreds of thousands, but of course they weren't "terrorists", they're not Muslims!

    I think the key word in your (fatuous) statement is "voted".

    Neither Neville Chamberlain nor FDR initiated any sort of vote at all, and the result was wars killing tens of millions, are they war criminals as well ?
    But Chamberlain and FDR were responding to aggression whilst Blair and Bush were the aggressors.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    justin124 said:

    Indigo said:

    EPG said:

    Blair and IDS voted for war that killed hundreds of thousands, but of course they weren't "terrorists", they're not Muslims!

    I think the key word in your (fatuous) statement is "voted".

    Neither Neville Chamberlain nor FDR initiated any sort of vote at all, and the result was wars killing tens of millions, are they war criminals as well ?
    Indigo said:

    EPG said:

    Blair and IDS voted for war that killed hundreds of thousands, but of course they weren't "terrorists", they're not Muslims!

    I think the key word in your (fatuous) statement is "voted".

    Neither Neville Chamberlain nor FDR initiated any sort of vote at all, and the result was wars killing tens of millions, are they war criminals as well ?
    But Chamberlain and FDR were responding to aggression whilst Blair and Bush were the aggressors.
    Oh, so no one had invaded Kuwait before the action ?
  • runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536


    And what would be the point in trying when the Crimean population overwhelmingly are Russian and wish to be part of Russia?

    Isn't the real disgrace that Ukraine never gave them a referendum on self determination and continue not to allow Odessa, Rostov and Kharkov the same. All those areas are defacto part of Russia but were put in the Ukraine for administrative convenience by the USSR.

    It would be as if the Victorians had put Northumberland and Cumberland in Scotland for administdative convenience and now Salmond and Sturgeon were now lording it over them with glee.

    ----------------------

    ------------------



    Presumably you'd also be happy with Austria occupying the South Tyrol as well..?

    The exact position of the English-Scots border was pretty uncertain for several hundred years as well. It's not where it is because of some perfect 'ethnic' dividing line.

    The border between Holland and Belgium is really just a ceasefire line as well etc. etc.

    There are lots of examples of odd borders (don't even start on Africa).

    The point re. Russia and Crimea is Russia accepted the border as it was when the USSR broke up (and got to keep a naval base) but have subsequently determined to change it by force. That cannot be acceptable - any country that does that puts itself outside the international community and if the international community does nothing to stop it, other rogue states will be emboldened.

    Military intervention wasn't realistic, but economic sanctions should have been much tougher including banning Russia from the international payment system and an embargo on Russian energy exports.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Indigo said:

    justin124 said:

    Indigo said:

    EPG said:

    Blair and IDS voted for war that killed hundreds of thousands, but of course they weren't "terrorists", they're not Muslims!

    I think the key word in your (fatuous) statement is "voted".

    Neither Neville Chamberlain nor FDR initiated any sort of vote at all, and the result was wars killing tens of millions, are they war criminals as well ?
    Indigo said:

    EPG said:

    Blair and IDS voted for war that killed hundreds of thousands, but of course they weren't "terrorists", they're not Muslims!

    I think the key word in your (fatuous) statement is "voted".

    Neither Neville Chamberlain nor FDR initiated any sort of vote at all, and the result was wars killing tens of millions, are they war criminals as well ?
    But Chamberlain and FDR were responding to aggression whilst Blair and Bush were the aggressors.
    Oh, so no one had invaded Kuwait before the action ?
    Indigo said:

    justin124 said:

    Indigo said:

    EPG said:

    Blair and IDS voted for war that killed hundreds of thousands, but of course they weren't "terrorists", they're not Muslims!

    I think the key word in your (fatuous) statement is "voted".

    Neither Neville Chamberlain nor FDR initiated any sort of vote at all, and the result was wars killing tens of millions, are they war criminals as well ?
    Indigo said:

    EPG said:

    Blair and IDS voted for war that killed hundreds of thousands, but of course they weren't "terrorists", they're not Muslims!

    I think the key word in your (fatuous) statement is "voted".

    Neither Neville Chamberlain nor FDR initiated any sort of vote at all, and the result was wars killing tens of millions, are they war criminals as well ?
    But Chamberlain and FDR were responding to aggression whilst Blair and Bush were the aggressors.
    Oh, so no one had invaded Kuwait before the action ?
    But that had already been dealt with in 1991 as authorised by the UN.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Rather puts the kibosh on this media meme

    Mi5 analyst “Only 2% of members of terrorist organisations suffer from mental health problems, compared with an average of up to 30% of members of the public”

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/mi5s-mind-readers-help-foil-seven-terrorist-attacks-dd28jxvh5
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    320 off 75 overs on a good flat wicket isn't impossible these days. It won't look good if England have to resort to bowling widish down the leg side to save the match.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,075
    Mr. 124, if you consider the UN to be the arbiter of when a war can be just then you're handing the right to declare war over to the Russians, Chinese, French and Americans for their approval.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    If Putin and Russia are so bad, why didn't Obama do something when Russia annexed Crimea?

    What specific something do you have in mind?
    Send in the troops. I'm not an apologist for Putin and Russia, but I find it galling when the likes of Obama and Clinton play the Russia card yet they themselves have appeased the Russians. It was the same with Syria and chemical weapons.

    I don't have a problem with a non-interventionist foreign policy. I have a real problem with a virtue signalling foreign policy.
    Can any of our military-minded posters tell us what would have been involved in dislodging the Russian army from Crimea?
    Give them a chance to get really comfy in their armchairs.
    That's right, wait till the Russians got complacent would be the key.
    I was meaning more the PB military-minded posters, but your take works too :)
    There is/was no realistic prospect plan for the US driving the Russian military out of Crimea either when the takeover happened or now.

    No naval presence available and torturously difficult overflight routes. How would US ground troops been get there?
    And what would be the point in trying when the Crimean population overwhelmingly are Russian and wish to be part of Russia?

    Isn't the real disgrace that Ukraine never gave them a referendum on self determination and continue not to allow Odessa, Rostov and Kharkov the same. All those areas are defacto part of Russia but were put in the Ukraine for administrative convenience by the USSR.

    .
    Err, isn't Rostov part of Russia?
  • Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    If Putin and Russia are so bad, why didn't Obama do something when Russia annexed Crimea?

    What specific something do you have in mind?
    Send in the troops. I'm not an apologist for Putin and Russia, but I find it galling when the likes of Obama and Clinton play the Russia card yet they themselves have appeased the Russians. It was the same with Syria and chemical weapons.

    I don't have a problem with a non-interventionist foreign policy. I have a real problem with a virtue signalling foreign policy.
    Can any of our military-minded posters tell us what would have been involved in dislodging the Russian army from Crimea?
    Give them a chance to get really comfy in their armchairs.
    That's right, wait till the Russians got complacent would be the key.
    I was meaning more the PB military-minded posters, but your take works too :)
    There is/was no realistic prospect plan for the US driving the Russian military out of Crimea either when the takeover happened or now.

    No naval presence available and torturously difficult overflight routes. How would US ground troops been get there?
    And what would be the point in trying when the Crimean population overwhelmingly are Russian and wish to be part of Russia?

    Isn't the real disgrace that Ukraine never gave them a referendum on self determination and continue not to allow Odessa, Rostov and Kharkov the same. All those areas are defacto part of Russia but were put in the Ukraine for administrative convenience by the USSR.

    .
    Err, isn't Rostov part of Russia?
    Sorry - meant Donetsk
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Much of the present USA is the product of 19th century aggression or 'terrorism' as the border was pushed further to the West and South. Bit surprised that Putin has never cited such precedents.America's hands are well soiled in mud if a longterm historical perspective is adopted.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,920
    runnymede said:




    Presumably you'd also be happy with Austria occupying the South Tyrol as well..?

    The exact position of the English-Scots border was pretty uncertain for several hundred years as well. It's not where it is because of some perfect 'ethnic' dividing line.

    The border between Holland and Belgium is really just a ceasefire line as well etc. etc.

    There are lots of examples of odd borders (don't even start on Africa).

    The point re. Russia and Crimea is Russia accepted the border as it was when the USSR broke up (and got to keep a naval base) but have subsequently determined to change it by force. That cannot be acceptable - any country that does that puts itself outside the international community and if the international community does nothing to stop it, other rogue states will be emboldened.

    Military intervention wasn't realistic, but economic sanctions should have been much tougher including banning Russia from the international payment system and an embargo on Russian energy exports.

    The prospect of Ukraine joining a hostile military alliance was, to use Nicola Sturgeon's favourite phrase, a material change in circumstances. From Russia's perspective the annexation of Crimea was necessary to ensure that a militarily important base didn't fall into enemy hands. It wasn't simply expanding the border for the sake of it.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    Mr. 124, if you consider the UN to be the arbiter of when a war can be just then you're handing the right to declare war over to the Russians, Chinese, French and Americans for their approval.

    We helped set the rules - but as always ignore them when it suits us whilst condemning other states that do likewise. A bit like the hypocrisy re-possession of nuclear weapons.
  • runnymede said:



    And what would be the point in trying when the Crimean population overwhelmingly are Russian and wish to be part of Russia?

    Isn't the real disgrace that Ukraine never gave them a referendum on self determination and continue not to allow Odessa, Rostov and Kharkov the same. All those areas are defacto part of Russia but were put in the Ukraine for administrative convenience by the USSR.

    It would be as if the Victorians had put Northumberland and Cumberland in Scotland for administdative convenience and now Salmond and Sturgeon were now lording it over them with glee.

    ----------------------

    ------------------



    Presumably you'd also be happy with Austria occupying the South Tyrol as well..?

    The exact position of the English-Scots border was pretty uncertain for several hundred years as well. It's not where it is because of some perfect 'ethnic' dividing line.

    The border between Holland and Belgium is really just a ceasefire line as well etc. etc.

    There are lots of examples of odd borders (don't even start on Africa).

    The point re. Russia and Crimea is Russia accepted the border as it was when the USSR broke up (and got to keep a naval base) but have subsequently determined to change it by force. That cannot be acceptable - any country that does that puts itself outside the international community and if the international community does nothing to stop it, other rogue states will be emboldened.

    Military intervention wasn't realistic, but economic sanctions should have been much tougher including banning Russia from the international payment system and an embargo on Russian energy exports.

    'Accepted' in the same way that Germany 'accepted' the treaty of versailles.

    Ie had an unjust settlement forced on them in a time of weakness.

    In the 30s Germany had a lot of sympathy over that - it was only when they made it obvious that they were after ethnically non German territories too to colonise them that we turned on them and declared war.

    If Germany had contented itself with the sudetenland and not occupied the rest of Czech and had limited its invasion of Poland to the area within the 1918 German border the international community would have gone along with it and many would have supported it

    It would be interesting to see what happened if there was a referendum in the south Tyrol.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    I'm still holding 4-5 Democrat,my only bet other than a small Bernie insurance bet lost.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    edited August 2016
    justin124 said:

    Mr. 124, if you consider the UN to be the arbiter of when a war can be just then you're handing the right to declare war over to the Russians, Chinese, French and Americans for their approval.

    We helped set the rules - but as always ignore them when it suits us whilst condemning other states that do likewise. A bit like the hypocrisy re-possession of nuclear weapons.
    I think the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the action in Libya (which went well beyond enforcing a no-fly zone) demonstrated to Russia and China that the rules, as far as the West is concerned, don't matter. All that matters is if one has the power to get away with what you want. The situation in & around the South China Sea and, maybe, that in the Ukraine. Is a direct result of the USA, the UK and France ignoring the UN.

    That said the UN charter does not give it sole rights to determine what is a "Just War" as the Charter specifically recognises to right to use military force in self defence.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,593

    I'm still holding 4-5 Democrat,my only bet other than a small Bernie insurance bet lost.

    That's a good bet, given that the Democrats are now around 1/3.
  • DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194

    Mr. 124, if you consider the UN to be the arbiter of when a war can be just then you're handing the right to declare war over to the Russians, Chinese, French and Americans for their approval.

    Britain signed the UN Charter. It thereby formally accepts that war is only lawful when it is authorised by the UN Security Council or when it is in self-defence. Five states have a veto on the said Council. If you don't like the position, then campaign for Britain to leave the UN.

    The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not authorised by the Security Council, and the reason why it was supposed to be in self-defence is known to have been an outright lie. The invasion was therefore most certainly unlawful. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in Iraq because of it. One consequence was the rise of Daesh, which brought about the civil war in Syria that has caused five million people to become refugees.

    Now please don't act like a spoilt brat and say you don't want foreigners such as the Russians, Chinese, French and Americans to tell you what to do.

    The Americans, or the US to give the country its proper name, already did tell Britain to take part in this crime anyway, and while a very small number of British civil servants and even some politicians did resign rather than sanction or participate in war crime, most preferred to help out.

    Not just Tony Blair but the rest of his cabinet too should be prosecuted for war crime, as should many senior intelligence officers, diplomats, civil servants and government lawyers.

    Even more importantly, reparations should be paid on a huge scale.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    justin124 said:

    Mr. 124, if you consider the UN to be the arbiter of when a war can be just then you're handing the right to declare war over to the Russians, Chinese, French and Americans for their approval.

    We helped set the rules - but as always ignore them when it suits us whilst condemning other states that do likewise. A bit like the hypocrisy re-possession of nuclear weapons.
    Not quite sure how this relates to terrorism. You appear to be equating conflicts started by elected governments with a votes in their legislatures, and conducted by uniformed soldiers operating within the lawful chain of command with the people that attacked Bataclan, If so, I would suggest your moral compass needs recalibrating.
  • DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    edited August 2016

    From Russia's perspective the annexation of Crimea was necessary to ensure that a militarily important base didn't fall into enemy hands.

    That is quite accurate. Remember too that the "Ukraine job" which led to US-backed fascists taking over in Kiev was mounted very shortly after the Sochi Olympics, during which the US put a warship in the Black Sea ostensibly to help "protect" the "security" of Olympic athletes and to evacuate them in the case of a "terrorist" attack. It is obvious to those who study strategic matters that the US was itching to get rights in Sevastopol, oh so "freely" granted by the new government in Kiev. The referendum in the Crimea wasn't a fake. The balance of power which has already been shifted so far by NATO expansionism and indeed by the putsch in Kiev was stopped from being shifted even further towards large-scale nuclear war in Europe.

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 29,261

    Mr. Felix, the media didn't report the Munich shooter shouting 'Allahu Akbar' and stuck with the loner/mental illness line. The mental illness line was deployed for the Russell Square murderer, though it's now thought increasingly likely he was another terrorist [now it's faded from being front and centre news].

    Now there's a report of an attack which would appear to be a slam-dunk case of terrorism being reported as 'thought of' being terrorism. If the chap hadn't actually shouted anything, I suspect it'd likely be reported as mental illness.

    I hope you're right. I suspect you're not.

    How do you stop a silly or deranged man shouting something irrespective of whether he believes it?
    This is a hilarious line I've heard a couple of times now on PB. They're just shouting Muslim chants - they don't mean it. As if some homicidal/suicidal maniac non-Muslim is going to waste their last words trying to imply that they are just another jihadist, thus denying their own actions any significance. For what reason exactly?
  • DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194

    King Cole, you don't think a man shouting "Allahu Akbar" whilst attacking police is indicative of terrorism?

    Miss Plato, fair enough. I used to go on holiday to Wales and Devon as a child, although I was clearly deprived as we never once trained with firearms.

    But if the news magazine Focus said you did, that wouldn't make it true.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    I see the Putin apologists are out in force today.
  • DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194

    I see the Putin apologists are out in force today.

    We're at the gates of Eton already, our bank accounts stuffed with gold.

    A word to the wise, ThreeQuidder: don't think in media buzzphrases.
  • The media are making a huge issue of trump / Putin, but Clinton foundation have taken loads of money from interesting Russian individuals linked to Putin, plus the sale of us uranianum mining company deal was another with a very bad smell.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    JackW said:

    National - ABC/Washington Post

    Clinton 50 .. Trump 42 - RV
    Clinton 51 .. Trump 44 - LV

    http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1180a1The2016Election.pdf

    Interesting Clinton leads Trump on immigration but I couldn't see any figures.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    justin124 said:

    Mr. 124, if you consider the UN to be the arbiter of when a war can be just then you're handing the right to declare war over to the Russians, Chinese, French and Americans for their approval.

    We helped set the rules - but as always ignore them when it suits us whilst condemning other states that do likewise. A bit like the hypocrisy re-possession of nuclear weapons.
    I think the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the action in Libya (which went well beyond enforcing a no-fly zone) demonstrated to Russia and China that the rules, as far as the West is concerned, don't matter. All that matters is if one has the power to get away with what you want. The situation in & around the South China Sea and, maybe, that in the Ukraine. Is a direct result of the USA, the UK and France ignoring the UN.

    That said the UN charter does not give it sole rights to determine what is a "Just War" as the Charter specifically recognises to right to use military force in self defence.
    The alternative is that if a western power decides that another nation represents a clear and present danger to its national interests or security, it has to sit there like a patsy and do nothing while the other side gathers its forces so long as either China or Russia decide it is in their interest to veto any sort of action, and its not as if Russia or China have the west's best interests close to their own hearts.
  • DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    edited August 2016

    Mr. Felix, the media didn't report the Munich shooter shouting 'Allahu Akbar' and stuck with the loner/mental illness line. The mental illness line was deployed for the Russell Square murderer, though it's now thought increasingly likely he was another terrorist [now it's faded from being front and centre news].

    Now there's a report of an attack which would appear to be a slam-dunk case of terrorism being reported as 'thought of' being terrorism. If the chap hadn't actually shouted anything, I suspect it'd likely be reported as mental illness.

    I hope you're right. I suspect you're not.

    How do you stop a silly or deranged man shouting something irrespective of whether he believes it?
    This is a hilarious line I've heard a couple of times now on PB. They're just shouting Muslim chants - they don't mean it. As if some homicidal/suicidal maniac non-Muslim is going to waste their last words trying to imply that they are just another jihadist, thus denying their own actions any significance. For what reason exactly?
    I don't think anything about the murder of innocent people is hilarious, even people's misconceptions.

    What is happening is that some mentally ill people who are Muslims culturally but who may not be religiously observant at all (look at the case of Mohamed Bouhlel in Nice) are finding that the way they want to go out of this world is to go "Islamo-postal".

    That is how the interplay of psychological warfare efforts is playing out at the moment. It needs to be stopped, but British efforts such as "Prevent" aren't stopping it, and innocent people are getting murdered as a result. It needs to be better understood, not just by security officials but by the population.

    Arguments over whether "terrorism" was the main "motivation" cloud the issue.
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    nunu said:

    JackW said:

    National - ABC/Washington Post

    Clinton 50 .. Trump 42 - RV
    Clinton 51 .. Trump 44 - LV

    http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1180a1The2016Election.pdf

    Interesting Clinton leads Trump on immigration but I couldn't see any figures.
    For those who support open borders rather than closed borders Clinton is a no brainer.

    http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/184262/american-public-opinion-immigration.aspx
  • DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    edited August 2016
    Indigo said:

    The alternative is that if a western power decides that another nation represents a clear and present danger to its national interests or security, it has to sit there like a patsy and do nothing while the other side gathers its forces so long as either China or Russia decide it is in their interest to veto any sort of action, and its not as if Russia or China have the west's best interests close to their own hearts.

    What do you think of Israel's build-up of a massive first-strike nuclear capability, when none of the nearby countries have one? It's not in the nearby countries' security interests. Agreed?

This discussion has been closed.