Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
Which is why woke/BLM is actually nothing to worry about.
Delusionally naive.
That's like saying the French Revolution ain't nothing to worry about because Robespierre gets it in the end.
My delusions don't seem to cause me any actual problems, unlike people who think either woke/BLM is the center of the world, or that it is the greatest threat to the world.
It seems that the whole culture wars is a way of impoverishing the easily led as they cease to do actual work, while enriching the rest of us.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
I recall American war propaganda from early 1942 until mid 1945 calling him "Uncle Joe", so I guess the truth is he was from Kansas...
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
Which is why woke/BLM is actually nothing to worry about.
Delusionally naive.
That's like saying the French Revolution ain't nothing to worry about because Robespierre gets it in the end.
My delusions don't seem to cause me any actual problems, unlike people who think either woke/BLM is the center of the world, or that it is the greatest threat to the world.
It seems that the whole culture wars is a way of impoverishing the easily led as they cease to do actual work, while enriching the rest of us.
Hey ho.
I think if you were creative and worked n the creative industries - like film, literature, theatre, music - or if you worked in academe, media, journalism, politics, then you would be much more exercised by this,
But you work in niche areas of tech which are probably the last to be affected by the mania. So you are clueless. You are like a French aristocrat in, say, rural Languedoc, wondering what all this Revolution fuss is about, up there in Paris
Mike, I like it that you called him Johnson here, not Boris. Keep it that way - it's inconsistent to use a self-chosen first name for one politician which implies some form of endearment which is not universally felt!
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.
If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.
Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.
But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.
If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.
Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Which of the two has made the right call?
THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.
Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.
Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.
I'm not sure. I'm married to an American and every day she shows me a new site where young black American (mainly) men telling the Black community it needs to stop blaming the cops for the endemic violence in the cities. They might just be Trump shrills paid for by the Russians but you also have minority communities in the big cities complaining about the massive rise in gun violence which impacts them more than police brutality
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.
If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.
Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.
But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.
If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.
Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Which of the two has made the right call?
THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.
Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.
Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.
It's been an interesting contrast between the two countries. There's little doubt that voters are increasingly hostile towards BLM in the UK - as they realise what the organisation actually stands for.
Key thing about US BLM is that it has gone WAY beyond just a core group of activists. Plus, in US the record of police contempt for and injustice to African Americans is so obvious & pervasive.
Back in 1988 yours truly was in training just outside Chicago to be a manager for a college-book buying company. One of the trainers was Black. One day he said he had to dash out to the parking lot to get something out of his car. Somebody said, hey, you better walk, you don't want some cop to shoot your ass. He laughed, we all laughed.
A generation later, you could still tell the same joke. But the laughter would be a bit more hollow.
THAT is why there's been a sea change here - because Americans KNOW that BLM is NOT just political correctness run amok.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
CNN: FBI New York Assistant Director in Charge William Sweeney said that bureau officials "have been discreetly keeping tabs" on Maxwell who had "slithered away to a gorgeous property" in New Hampshire.
"We learned she had slithered away to a gorgeous property in New Hampshire, continuing to live a live a life of privilege while her victims continue to live with the trauma inflicted upon them years ago. We moved when we were ready and Ms. Maxwell was arrested without incident,” he said.
Sweeney said that the FBI, along with the NYPD, arrested Maxwell in Bradford, New Hampshire, this morning without incident.
Very surprised she was still in the US.
Who calls it a 'gorgeous property'? Have they appointed Lawrence Llewellyn Bowen as FBI Director?
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.
If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.
Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.
But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.
If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.
Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Which of the two has made the right call?
THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.
Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.
Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.
I'm not sure. I'm married to an American and every day she shows me a new site where young black American (mainly) men telling the Black community it needs to stop blaming the cops for the endemic violence in the cities. They might just be Trump shrills paid for by the Russians but you also have minority communities in the big cities complaining about the massive rise in gun violence which impacts them more than police brutality
The two things - reality of both police injustice AND black-on-black violence - are NOT mutually exclusive. Indeed, they tend to feed upon & reinforce one another.
Sad thing about "Black Lives Matter" is that the two groups who are LEAST likely to believe in the concept, are White police officers and Black gang-bangers.
Just discovered that SeanT's grandfather knew LLoyd George. He stood as a Liberal candidate in 1918 and used to travel into London with LG. Lloyd George also signed a letter to The Times asking for a memorial to his son Edward Thomas for his services to poetry.
Just a second. Just read this on the previous thread. Is this for real? Is SeanT genuinely the grandson of Edward Thomas. Along with John Clare, Thomas is one of my great poetic heroes.
Is this real or someone messing about?
If old Seany had to bear the burden of being the product of a short listed Booker Prize novelist AND Edward Thomas I'd make more than a drop of the milk of human kindness available to him.
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.
If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.
Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.
But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.
If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.
Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Which of the two has made the right call?
THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.
Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.
Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.
I'm not sure. I'm married to an American and every day she shows me a new site where young black American (mainly) men telling the Black community it needs to stop blaming the cops for the endemic violence in the cities. They might just be Trump shrills paid for by the Russians but you also have minority communities in the big cities complaining about the massive rise in gun violence which impacts them more than police brutality
The two things - reality of both police injustice AND black-on-black violence - are NOT mutually exclusive. Indeed, they tend to feed upon & reinforce one another.
Sad thing about "Black Lives Matter" is that the two groups who are LEAST likely to believe in the concept, are White police officers and Black gang-bangers.
That has to be the funniest VAR yet. Spurs didn't even get a free-kick!
Yup, reminds me of a European Cup match featuring Dirty Leeds when a Leeds player was kicked into an offside position.
That remains one of the crookedest refereeing performances I've ever seen. It lives in the memory and I'm certainly not a Weeds Punited fan.
It wasn't just the one decision, although that offside was about as bad as it gets. It was the whole game. Weeds were so superior that the ref had to bend over backwards just to give their opponents a chance and even then they nearly muffed it.
Not seen that before but it looks pretty terrible.
Like most refs, I can spot a crooked one quickly and with a lot more certainty than your average football fan, but I have to see it live and without the commentary etc. Last obviously crooked one I saw was Tunisia v England in the 2018 WC but there was such a gulf in class between the sides that Tunisia still got beat.
Let me just enlighten you by pointing out that crooked performances often arise less from the crude delivery of notes in a brown envelope than from the eagerness of some officials to ingratiate themselves with the powerful owners and administrators sitting in the stands. They know who is there, and officiate accordingly.
That may be what happened with the game in question. You may also recall there was once a very long period during which the England team could never get a penalty yet conceded very many soft ones. It coincided with a period when Sepp Blatter and his mates were displeased with the FA. No need to join up the dots there!
The game that brought the invincibles run to an end on 49.They should have been down to 8 men by HT!
Mike, I like it that you called him Johnson here, not Boris. Keep it that way - it's inconsistent to use a self-chosen first name for one politician which implies some form of endearment which is not universally felt!
Excellent point. Yours truly tells political candidates and campaigns NOT to call opponents by the first names, because it's too warm & fuzzy. Why make people think they MUST be ok because even their foes are on a first-name basis?
The hashtag suggests Myrtle Beach which is in South Carolina. Don't think it's a bald eagle though, they have white tails usually, plus they prefer colder climes so I think they'd be less likely to be as far south as SC this time of year.
I get to see them some winters hunting on the Hudson while waiting for my train to work. They are pretty big though and I could see one grabbing a small shark.
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.
If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.
Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.
But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.
If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.
Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Which of the two has made the right call?
THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.
Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.
Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.
I'm not sure. I'm married to an American and every day she shows me a new site where young black American (mainly) men telling the Black community it needs to stop blaming the cops for the endemic violence in the cities. They might just be Trump shrills paid for by the Russians but you also have minority communities in the big cities complaining about the massive rise in gun violence which impacts them more than police brutality
The two things - reality of both police injustice AND black-on-black violence - are NOT mutually exclusive. Indeed, they tend to feed upon & reinforce one another.
Sad thing about "Black Lives Matter" is that the two groups who are LEAST likely to believe in the concept, are White police officers and Black gang-bangers.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.
If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.
Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.
But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.
If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.
Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Which of the two has made the right call?
THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.
Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.
Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.
I'm not sure. I'm married to an American and every day she shows me a new site where young black American (mainly) men telling the Black community it needs to stop blaming the cops for the endemic violence in the cities. They might just be Trump shrills paid for by the Russians but you also have minority communities in the big cities complaining about the massive rise in gun violence which impacts them more than police brutality
The two things - reality of both police injustice AND black-on-black violence - are NOT mutually exclusive. Indeed, they tend to feed upon & reinforce one another.
Sad thing about "Black Lives Matter" is that the two groups who are LEAST likely to believe in the concept, are White police officers and Black gang-bangers.
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.
If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.
Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.
But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.
If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.
Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Which of the two has made the right call?
THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.
Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.
Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.
I'm not sure. I'm married to an American and every day she shows me a new site where young black American (mainly) men telling the Black community it needs to stop blaming the cops for the endemic violence in the cities. They might just be Trump shrills paid for by the Russians but you also have minority communities in the big cities complaining about the massive rise in gun violence which impacts them more than police brutality
The two things - reality of both police injustice AND black-on-black violence - are NOT mutually exclusive. Indeed, they tend to feed upon & reinforce one another.
Sad thing about "Black Lives Matter" is that the two groups who are LEAST likely to believe in the concept, are White police officers and Black gang-bangers.
Black, um, what??
You never heard the term gang banger before?
I suggest anyone about to google search does so alone.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
Which is why woke/BLM is actually nothing to worry about.
Delusionally naive.
That's like saying the French Revolution ain't nothing to worry about because Robespierre gets it in the end.
My delusions don't seem to cause me any actual problems, unlike people who think either woke/BLM is the center of the world, or that it is the greatest threat to the world.
It seems that the whole culture wars is a way of impoverishing the easily led as they cease to do actual work, while enriching the rest of us.
Hey ho.
I think if you were creative and worked n the creative industries - like film, literature, theatre, music - or if you worked in academe, media, journalism, politics, then you would be much more exercised by this,
But you work in niche areas of tech which are probably the last to be affected by the mania. So you are clueless. You are like a French aristocrat in, say, rural Languedoc, wondering what all this Revolution fuss is about, up there in Paris
The world is going mad
I was on a conference call this week and someone said something fairly innocuous to me about me "leaving the dark side" (change in employer many moons ago)
About an hour after the meeting ended that person e mailed everyone in on the call to apologise for any offence caused by using the term "dark side"
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
Of course he was. But, again, calling Stalin a "Russian nationalist" in the very same sense that Hitler was a "German nationalist" is absurd, in my mind.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
Austrians have always been considered a German people, hence the public desire for Anschluss with the collapse of the Hapsburgs. Georgians have never been a Russian people.
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.
If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.
Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.
But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.
If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.
Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Which of the two has made the right call?
THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.
Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.
Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.
I'm not sure. I'm married to an American and every day she shows me a new site where young black American (mainly) men telling the Black community it needs to stop blaming the cops for the endemic violence in the cities. They might just be Trump shrills paid for by the Russians but you also have minority communities in the big cities complaining about the massive rise in gun violence which impacts them more than police brutality
The two things - reality of both police injustice AND black-on-black violence - are NOT mutually exclusive. Indeed, they tend to feed upon & reinforce one another.
Sad thing about "Black Lives Matter" is that the two groups who are LEAST likely to believe in the concept, are White police officers and Black gang-bangers.
It's an osprey. Increasingly common in Scotland. Saw one yesterday, in fact. I believe they are nesting at Rutland Water now and several other places in England. Also found in the New Word - I remember seeing loads of them in Florida. Nest on pylons there.
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.
If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.
Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.
But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.
If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.
Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Which of the two has made the right call?
THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.
Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.
Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.
I'm not sure. I'm married to an American and every day she shows me a new site where young black American (mainly) men telling the Black community it needs to stop blaming the cops for the endemic violence in the cities. They might just be Trump shrills paid for by the Russians but you also have minority communities in the big cities complaining about the massive rise in gun violence which impacts them more than police brutality
The two things - reality of both police injustice AND black-on-black violence - are NOT mutually exclusive. Indeed, they tend to feed upon & reinforce one another.
Sad thing about "Black Lives Matter" is that the two groups who are LEAST likely to believe in the concept, are White police officers and Black gang-bangers.
Black, um, what??
You never heard the term gang banger before?
I have heard it, that's the issue!
There might be more than one meaning.......
I've heard two different meanings before and from context can infer which of the two it is.
Re: Robert Maxwell's darling daughter, fact that she was able to hide out without detection is NOT that surprising. IF she kept to herself, avoided going out & about, didn't invite people into her hideout, and kept off the phone/web. Especially in place & culture where minding your own beeswax is a virtue. ESPECIALLY during the pandemic.
Instead of a coverup, more likely it took the FBI a while to track her down because she was covering her tracks. Until she messed up OR the G-men got a lucky break.
Anyway, my guess is she's gonna start spilling the beans big-time. AND that it's just possible the Queen might find herself waiving bye-bye to His Foul Highness as his jet passes Windsor on the way to New York to be a "guest" of the US govt.
Which is why woke/BLM is actually nothing to worry about.
Delusionally naive.
That's like saying the French Revolution ain't nothing to worry about because Robespierre gets it in the end.
My delusions don't seem to cause me any actual problems, unlike people who think either woke/BLM is the center of the world, or that it is the greatest threat to the world.
It seems that the whole culture wars is a way of impoverishing the easily led as they cease to do actual work, while enriching the rest of us.
Hey ho.
I think if you were creative and worked n the creative industries - like film, literature, theatre, music - or if you worked in academe, media, journalism, politics, then you would be much more exercised by this,
But you work in niche areas of tech which are probably the last to be affected by the mania. So you are clueless. You are like a French aristocrat in, say, rural Languedoc, wondering what all this Revolution fuss is about, up there in Paris
The world is going mad
I was on a conference call this week and someone said something fairly innocuous to me about me "leaving the dark side" (change in employer many moons ago)
About an hour after the meeting ended that person e mailed everyone in on the call to apologise for any offence caused by using the term "dark side"
Seriously...........................
Yes, rcs is living in a dreamland. If he's lucky the Frenzy will burn out before it reaches STEM...
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.
If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.
Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.
But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.
If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.
Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Which of the two has made the right call?
THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.
Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.
Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.
I'm not sure. I'm married to an American and every day she shows me a new site where young black American (mainly) men telling the Black community it needs to stop blaming the cops for the endemic violence in the cities. They might just be Trump shrills paid for by the Russians but you also have minority communities in the big cities complaining about the massive rise in gun violence which impacts them more than police brutality
The two things - reality of both police injustice AND black-on-black violence - are NOT mutually exclusive. Indeed, they tend to feed upon & reinforce one another.
Sad thing about "Black Lives Matter" is that the two groups who are LEAST likely to believe in the concept, are White police officers and Black gang-bangers.
Black, um, what??
You never heard the term gang banger before?
I have heard it, that's the issue!
There might be more than one meaning.......
I've heard two different meanings before and from context can infer which of the two it is.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
Austrians have always been considered a German people, hence the public desire for Anschluss with the collapse of the Hapsburgs. Georgians have never been a Russian people.
The only way to find out for sure would be to ask a Georgian whether he "feels Russian". I'd advise to do so from a very safe distance.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
As far as I understand it, the German Nationalism at that time was much more to do with a "Nation" of German speaking people and rather than the country of Germany, which in the early 20th century was still a relatively recent creation. It was this type of German Nationalism that Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka Nazi) stood for. In that context it makes no difference if Hitler was born in Germany or in Austria, because he was German.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
Austrians have always been considered a German people, hence the public desire for Anschluss with the collapse of the Hapsburgs. Georgians have never been a Russian people.
But Hitler wasn't even ethnically German, by his own warped standards.
Hitler idolised the tall blond Aryan, as we know. Yet Hitler was definitely short, and dark haired, and probably grey eyed rather than blue (accounts vary)
There are a lot ofquite cogent theories that Hitler was probably the product of mixed Slavic/Celtic descent, FWIW, rather than Germanic.
So a comparison with the Georgian but Russian-speaking Stalin is not inapt
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
Austrians have always been considered a German people, hence the public desire for Anschluss with the collapse of the Hapsburgs. Georgians have never been a Russian people.
And Welsh have never been English - yet Lloyd George was a British, not Welsh, nationalist. Why? Because for one thing, he didn't want to be a big fish in a small pond - he wanted to be a big fish in a big pond!
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
As far as I understand it, the German Nationalism at that time was much more to do with a "Nation" of German speaking people and rather than the country of Germany, which in the early 20th century was still a relatively recent creation. It was this type of German Nationalism that Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka Nazi) stood for. In that context it makes no difference if Hitler was born in Germany or in Austria, because he was German.
Indeed. And contrary to the plot of 'The Sound of Music', there wasn't really an Austrian national identity, as it had been part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before WWI.
Which is why woke/BLM is actually nothing to worry about.
Delusionally naive.
That's like saying the French Revolution ain't nothing to worry about because Robespierre gets it in the end.
My delusions don't seem to cause me any actual problems, unlike people who think either woke/BLM is the center of the world, or that it is the greatest threat to the world.
It seems that the whole culture wars is a way of impoverishing the easily led as they cease to do actual work, while enriching the rest of us.
Hey ho.
I think if you were creative and worked n the creative industries - like film, literature, theatre, music - or if you worked in academe, media, journalism, politics, then you would be much more exercised by this,
But you work in niche areas of tech which are probably the last to be affected by the mania. So you are clueless. You are like a French aristocrat in, say, rural Languedoc, wondering what all this Revolution fuss is about, up there in Paris
Wake me up when the revolution involves actual people being killed, rather than being mildly inconvenienced.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
Austrians have always been considered a German people, hence the public desire for Anschluss with the collapse of the Hapsburgs. Georgians have never been a Russian people.
But Hitler wasn't even ethnically German, by his own warped standards.
Hitler idolised the tall blond Aryan, as we know. Yet Hitler was definitely short, and dark haired, and probably grey eyed rather than blue (accounts vary)
There are a lot ofquite cogent theories that Hitler was probably the product of mixed Slavic/Celtic descent, FWIW, rather than Germanic.
So a comparison with the Georgian but Russian-speaking Stalin is not inapt
Grey eyes would make him more Aryan wouldn't they? More white anyway. The spectrum, depending on the degree of pigmentation, goes brown, hazel, green, blue, grey, white.
Which is why woke/BLM is actually nothing to worry about.
Delusionally naive.
That's like saying the French Revolution ain't nothing to worry about because Robespierre gets it in the end.
My delusions don't seem to cause me any actual problems, unlike people who think either woke/BLM is the center of the world, or that it is the greatest threat to the world.
It seems that the whole culture wars is a way of impoverishing the easily led as they cease to do actual work, while enriching the rest of us.
Hey ho.
I think if you were creative and worked n the creative industries - like film, literature, theatre, music - or if you worked in academe, media, journalism, politics, then you would be much more exercised by this,
But you work in niche areas of tech which are probably the last to be affected by the mania. So you are clueless. You are like a French aristocrat in, say, rural Languedoc, wondering what all this Revolution fuss is about, up there in Paris
Wake me up when the revolution involves actual people being killed, rather than being mildly inconvenienced.
i hear you - but losing your job is more than mildly inconvenienced
Which is why woke/BLM is actually nothing to worry about.
Delusionally naive.
That's like saying the French Revolution ain't nothing to worry about because Robespierre gets it in the end.
My delusions don't seem to cause me any actual problems, unlike people who think either woke/BLM is the center of the world, or that it is the greatest threat to the world.
It seems that the whole culture wars is a way of impoverishing the easily led as they cease to do actual work, while enriching the rest of us.
Hey ho.
I think if you were creative and worked n the creative industries - like film, literature, theatre, music - or if you worked in academe, media, journalism, politics, then you would be much more exercised by this,
But you work in niche areas of tech which are probably the last to be affected by the mania. So you are clueless. You are like a French aristocrat in, say, rural Languedoc, wondering what all this Revolution fuss is about, up there in Paris
Wake me up when the revolution involves actual people being killed, rather than being mildly inconvenienced.
What was that LadyG/Eadric/SeanT was saying about the second half of 2020 couldn't be any worse?
Next up - nuclear war between India and China......
The Indian nuclear deterrent makes an all-out attack on India by China that much less likely.
China wants Taiwan back and also has a territorial dispute with Japan. They appear to be more likely targets for disastrous military adventurism.
Chinese action versus India is for domestic consumption, to (try to) distract Chinese public from the follies & failures of the regime.
Xi's not crazy enough to truly provoke US or Taiwan or Korea (North or South) & Japan. Is in bed (sort of) with Russia. As for Vietnam, well Chinese tried that back in late 70s and got a bloody nose (not as bad but something like Russia versus Finland in Winter War).
It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.
That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.
To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.
But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.
The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.
If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.
Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.
But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.
If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.
Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?
Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.
Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.
Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.
Which of the two has made the right call?
THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.
Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.
Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.
I'm not sure. I'm married to an American and every day she shows me a new site where young black American (mainly) men telling the Black community it needs to stop blaming the cops for the endemic violence in the cities. They might just be Trump shrills paid for by the Russians but you also have minority communities in the big cities complaining about the massive rise in gun violence which impacts them more than police brutality
If there's been "a massive rise in gun violence", why hasn't the US firearm homicide rate changed meaningfully?
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
Austrians have always been considered a German people, hence the public desire for Anschluss with the collapse of the Hapsburgs. Georgians have never been a Russian people.
But Hitler wasn't even ethnically German, by his own warped standards.
Hitler idolised the tall blond Aryan, as we know. Yet Hitler was definitely short, and dark haired, and probably grey eyed rather than blue (accounts vary)
There are a lot ofquite cogent theories that Hitler was probably the product of mixed Slavic/Celtic descent, FWIW, rather than Germanic.
So a comparison with the Georgian but Russian-speaking Stalin is not inapt
Grey eyes would make him more Aryan wouldn't they? More white anyway. The spectrum, depending on the degree of pigmentation, goes brown, hazel, green, blue, grey, white.
It's rather distasteful, but then, this is Hitler
So the thinking is, the grey eyes suggest a hint of north European blonde Nordic ancestry, but the short stature and dark looks indicate a predominance of Slavic/Celtic maybe even Balkan genes.
Hitler certainly would not have featured in any Leni Riefesntahl films as an Aryan ideal
This "ad" really puts my back up. It's using unreasoning innuendo and gossip to criticise the very process they accuse Trump of benefiting from.
I have always wanted to believe that using the media to manipulate votes was a non-starter and irrelevant and would bounce off one's numeracy, literacy, scepticism and logic. But the virus particularly has made me become aware of a larger world in which that is commonly untrue.
For instance, from Bournemouth beach to Brexit, I begin to understand a relative saying "If the world's most powerful man (Obama) says we ought to stay then I'm voting for Brexit".
This of course what the world's greatest terrorist (Putin) wanted.
Liverpool look like they might join the list of champions who have won despite not having the best goal difference:
2016-17 - Chelsea (+52 v +60 for Spurs) 2015-16 - Leicester (+32 v +34 for Spurs) 2014-15 - Chelsea (+41 v +45 for Man City) 2008-09 - Man Utd (+44 v +50 for Liverpool) 2002-03 - Man Utd (+40 v +43 for Arsenal) 1997-98 - Arsenal (+35 v +47 for Man Utd) 1996-97 - Man Utd (+32 v +33 for Newcastle) 1994-95 - Blackburn (+41 v +49 for Man Utd) 1980-81 - Aston Villa (+32 v +34 for Ipswich)
It's a bit like first past the post. Where and when you get the goals matters as much as how many you get overall.
Which is why woke/BLM is actually nothing to worry about.
Delusionally naive.
That's like saying the French Revolution ain't nothing to worry about because Robespierre gets it in the end.
My delusions don't seem to cause me any actual problems, unlike people who think either woke/BLM is the center of the world, or that it is the greatest threat to the world.
It seems that the whole culture wars is a way of impoverishing the easily led as they cease to do actual work, while enriching the rest of us.
Hey ho.
I think if you were creative and worked n the creative industries - like film, literature, theatre, music - or if you worked in academe, media, journalism, politics, then you would be much more exercised by this,
But you work in niche areas of tech which are probably the last to be affected by the mania. So you are clueless. You are like a French aristocrat in, say, rural Languedoc, wondering what all this Revolution fuss is about, up there in Paris
Wake me up when the revolution involves actual people being killed, rather than being mildly inconvenienced.
What was that LadyG/Eadric/SeanT was saying about the second half of 2020 couldn't be any worse?
Next up - nuclear war between India and China......
The Indian nuclear deterrent makes an all-out attack on India by China that much less likely.
China wants Taiwan back and also has a territorial dispute with Japan. They appear to be more likely targets for disastrous military adventurism.
Chinese action versus India is for domestic consumption, to (try to) distract Chinese public from the follies & failures of the regime.
Xi's not crazy enough to truly provoke US or Taiwan or Korea (North or South) & Japan. Is in bed (sort of) with Russia. As for Vietnam, well Chinese tried that back in late 70s and got a bloody nose (not as bad but something like Russia versus Finland in Winter War).
Fun fact: Some of the people involved in the Lincoln project attempted to get Jim Mattis to run as an alternative to Trump in 2016.
I just want to cover off something around Ghislane Maxwell. The conspiracy aspects of the whole Epstein thing carries weight but can you even suggest its a conspiracy any more? Many aspects of the case are well known and Occams Razor will apply. This is going to widen to public officials either directly involved or who turned a blind eye. The FBI people on the case include people who work in corruption investigations which suggests the latter.
Epstein had murky links at home and abroad, as well as being a 'friend and confidant' of high profile people, with not always desirable people & organisations. Maxwell is in the same boat, connections elsewhere that could not not be described as all glamour of the society hobnobbing but rather more 'professional' in their purpose. Epstein was wealthy, but was he really that wealthy just being the advisor he claimed to be or something else?
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
Austrians have always been considered a German people, hence the public desire for Anschluss with the collapse of the Hapsburgs. Georgians have never been a Russian people.
But Hitler wasn't even ethnically German, by his own warped standards.
Hitler idolised the tall blond Aryan, as we know. Yet Hitler was definitely short, and dark haired, and probably grey eyed rather than blue (accounts vary)
There are a lot ofquite cogent theories that Hitler was probably the product of mixed Slavic/Celtic descent, FWIW, rather than Germanic.
So a comparison with the Georgian but Russian-speaking Stalin is not inapt
Grey eyes would make him more Aryan wouldn't they? More white anyway. The spectrum, depending on the degree of pigmentation, goes brown, hazel, green, blue, grey, white.
It's rather distasteful, but then, this is Hitler
So the thinking is, the grey eyes suggest a hint of north European blonde Nordic ancestry, but the short stature and dark looks indicate a predominance of Slavic/Celtic maybe even Balkan genes.
Hitler certainly would not have featured in any Leni Riefesntahl films as an Aryan ideal
Hitler had his minions shred as much documentation re: his family tree as they could find. Cause he was afraid of what the docs would reveal about his ancestry. Not just on racial term, but re: mental health and congenital conditions.
Which is why woke/BLM is actually nothing to worry about.
Delusionally naive.
That's like saying the French Revolution ain't nothing to worry about because Robespierre gets it in the end.
My delusions don't seem to cause me any actual problems, unlike people who think either woke/BLM is the center of the world, or that it is the greatest threat to the world.
It seems that the whole culture wars is a way of impoverishing the easily led as they cease to do actual work, while enriching the rest of us.
Hey ho.
I think if you were creative and worked n the creative industries - like film, literature, theatre, music - or if you worked in academe, media, journalism, politics, then you would be much more exercised by this,
But you work in niche areas of tech which are probably the last to be affected by the mania. So you are clueless. You are like a French aristocrat in, say, rural Languedoc, wondering what all this Revolution fuss is about, up there in Paris
Wake me up when the revolution involves actual people being killed, rather than being mildly inconvenienced.
Which is why woke/BLM is actually nothing to worry about.
Delusionally naive.
That's like saying the French Revolution ain't nothing to worry about because Robespierre gets it in the end.
My delusions don't seem to cause me any actual problems, unlike people who think either woke/BLM is the center of the world, or that it is the greatest threat to the world.
It seems that the whole culture wars is a way of impoverishing the easily led as they cease to do actual work, while enriching the rest of us.
Hey ho.
I think if you were creative and worked n the creative industries - like film, literature, theatre, music - or if you worked in academe, media, journalism, politics, then you would be much more exercised by this,
But you work in niche areas of tech which are probably the last to be affected by the mania. So you are clueless. You are like a French aristocrat in, say, rural Languedoc, wondering what all this Revolution fuss is about, up there in Paris
The world is going mad
I was on a conference call this week and someone said something fairly innocuous to me about me "leaving the dark side" (change in employer many moons ago)
About an hour after the meeting ended that person e mailed everyone in on the call to apologise for any offence caused by using the term "dark side"
Seriously...........................
Yes, rcs is living in a dreamland. If he's lucky the Frenzy will burn out before it reaches STEM...
The frenzy is already burning out. There is no commune in Seattle any more. There are no more riots.
The woke crew have started to argue among themselves over who is purest.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
As far as I understand it, the German Nationalism at that time was much more to do with a "Nation" of German speaking people and rather than the country of Germany, which in the early 20th century was still a relatively recent creation. It was this type of German Nationalism that Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka Nazi) stood for. In that context it makes no difference if Hitler was born in Germany or in Austria, because he was German.
Indeed. And contrary to the plot of 'The Sound of Music', there wasn't really an Austrian national identity, as it had been part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before WWI.
I disagree. There was a very distinct Austrian national identity. Even after Königgrätz, and even after the end of the House of Habsburg. Although in 1938 there was a clear majority for the Anschluß.
Which is why woke/BLM is actually nothing to worry about.
Delusionally naive.
That's like saying the French Revolution ain't nothing to worry about because Robespierre gets it in the end.
My delusions don't seem to cause me any actual problems, unlike people who think either woke/BLM is the center of the world, or that it is the greatest threat to the world.
It seems that the whole culture wars is a way of impoverishing the easily led as they cease to do actual work, while enriching the rest of us.
Hey ho.
I think if you were creative and worked n the creative industries - like film, literature, theatre, music - or if you worked in academe, media, journalism, politics, then you would be much more exercised by this,
But you work in niche areas of tech which are probably the last to be affected by the mania. So you are clueless. You are like a French aristocrat in, say, rural Languedoc, wondering what all this Revolution fuss is about, up there in Paris
Wake me up when the revolution involves actual people being killed, rather than being mildly inconvenienced.
It look less than a week to turn from all peace and harmony singing kumbaya, into a lawless gangland with several murders. Which surprised no-one on the outside.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
Austrians have always been considered a German people, hence the public desire for Anschluss with the collapse of the Hapsburgs. Georgians have never been a Russian people.
But Hitler wasn't even ethnically German, by his own warped standards.
Hitler idolised the tall blond Aryan, as we know. Yet Hitler was definitely short, and dark haired, and probably grey eyed rather than blue (accounts vary)
There are a lot ofquite cogent theories that Hitler was probably the product of mixed Slavic/Celtic descent, FWIW, rather than Germanic.
So a comparison with the Georgian but Russian-speaking Stalin is not inapt
No, as eristdoof correctly explains he like most Austrians (and Germans) of the time considered themselves a German people.
This is entirely distinct from "Teutonic ideal" concept of the creation of an ubermench.
Hitler was a German nationalist because at the time, and throughout the history of the HRE, "Austrians" were considered just germans of the eastern march.
Stalin was not a Russian nationalist in the same sense.
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
Austrians have always been considered a German people, hence the public desire for Anschluss with the collapse of the Hapsburgs. Georgians have never been a Russian people.
But Hitler wasn't even ethnically German, by his own warped standards.
Hitler idolised the tall blond Aryan, as we know. Yet Hitler was definitely short, and dark haired, and probably grey eyed rather than blue (accounts vary)
There are a lot ofquite cogent theories that Hitler was probably the product of mixed Slavic/Celtic descent, FWIW, rather than Germanic.
So a comparison with the Georgian but Russian-speaking Stalin is not inapt
Grey eyes would make him more Aryan wouldn't they? More white anyway. The spectrum, depending on the degree of pigmentation, goes brown, hazel, green, blue, grey, white.
It's rather distasteful, but then, this is Hitler
So the thinking is, the grey eyes suggest a hint of north European blonde Nordic ancestry, but the short stature and dark looks indicate a predominance of Slavic/Celtic maybe even Balkan genes.
Hitler certainly would not have featured in any Leni Riefesntahl films as an Aryan ideal
He famously had some Jewish ancestry on his mother's side, which I think he destroyed a village to cover up (not sure, that could be a QI Klaxon).
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
Austrians have always been considered a German people, hence the public desire for Anschluss with the collapse of the Hapsburgs. Georgians have never been a Russian people.
But Hitler wasn't even ethnically German, by his own warped standards.
Hitler idolised the tall blond Aryan, as we know. Yet Hitler was definitely short, and dark haired, and probably grey eyed rather than blue (accounts vary)
There are a lot ofquite cogent theories that Hitler was probably the product of mixed Slavic/Celtic descent, FWIW, rather than Germanic.
So a comparison with the Georgian but Russian-speaking Stalin is not inapt
Grey eyes would make him more Aryan wouldn't they? More white anyway. The spectrum, depending on the degree of pigmentation, goes brown, hazel, green, blue, grey, white.
It's rather distasteful, but then, this is Hitler
So the thinking is, the grey eyes suggest a hint of north European blonde Nordic ancestry, but the short stature and dark looks indicate a predominance of Slavic/Celtic maybe even Balkan genes.
Hitler certainly would not have featured in any Leni Riefesntahl films as an Aryan ideal
With the exception of Heydrich none of the leading Nazis lived up to that phenotypic ideal, but the idea of calling that "Aryan" is utterly ludicrous to begin with. The "Aryans" were and still are an Iranic tribe. Iran is literally called the Land of the Aryans.
Just learned that there is now a self-sustaining population of 100 Great Bustards in southern England.
What a magnificent thing. A wonderful reintroduction.
This bird, one of the largest flying animals in thw world, went extinct in the UK in 1832.
Nice to have good news.
Indeed. I remember seeing the mounted one in Salisbury Museum many years ago, a Wiltshire original IIRC.
I drove down the M4 the other day. There are now Red Kites virtually all the way, from Reading to Bristol. Glorious soaring raptors.
They are huge and they are noisy. I love them.
They also went extinct in the UK, England and Scotland, in 1880.
Boy are they BACK
Yes they are, I live in North Hampshire and they are commonplace, although apparently they are lone juveniles rather than breeding pairs. I have even seen them in Aldershot. How long before they are urban vermin again, as in Shakespeare's London?
Which part of North Hampshire if you don’t mind me asking?
Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.
It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.
It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?
The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.
Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?
Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.
As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.
In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.
Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.
Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.
He is an "elected" Tsar.
Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.
Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist? Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.
Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.
Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.
He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.
Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.
Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity
When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?
lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.
Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,
As far as I understand it, the German Nationalism at that time was much more to do with a "Nation" of German speaking people and rather than the country of Germany, which in the early 20th century was still a relatively recent creation. It was this type of German Nationalism that Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka Nazi) stood for. In that context it makes no difference if Hitler was born in Germany or in Austria, because he was German.
Indeed. And contrary to the plot of 'The Sound of Music', there wasn't really an Austrian national identity, as it had been part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before WWI.
I disagree. There was a very distinct Austrian national identity. Even after Königgrätz, and even after the end of the House of Habsburg. Although in 1938 there was a clear majority for the Anschluß.
Austrians got lucky (sort of) because they were considered victims instead of beneficiaries of the Third Reich. Note that Otto von Hapsburg spent WWII in US and played a key role in convincing Allied leaders to treat Austrians as fellow-sufferers not co-conspirators.
The alternative to telling people not to overdo it is to not reopen at all. If it is ok to reopen (which people will naturally disagree about), advising people to be cautious while doing so probably does make the necessary point. If it is not ok to reopen that is something else.
Comments
It seems that the whole culture wars is a way of impoverishing the easily led as they cease to do actual work, while enriching the rest of us.
Hey ho.
but politically, Karma...
https://twitter.com/adityasood/status/1278734014958825472
But you work in niche areas of tech which are probably the last to be affected by the mania. So you are clueless. You are like a French aristocrat in, say, rural Languedoc, wondering what all this Revolution fuss is about, up there in Paris
Racism obviously exists in this country. But, if you're trying to portray Mark Duggan as a victim of injustice, you're on a hiding to nothing.
"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"
2020 Jumps The Shark
Sad thing about "Black Lives Matter" is that the two groups who are LEAST likely to believe in the concept, are White police officers and Black gang-bangers.
Perhaps R.S.Thomas can be dragged into the mix.
I get to see them some winters hunting on the Hudson while waiting for my train to work. They are pretty big though and I could see one grabbing a small shark.
China wants Taiwan back and also has a territorial dispute with Japan. They appear to be more likely targets for disastrous military adventurism.
https://twitter.com/ClancyReports/status/1278780977914011654?s=20
And probably better for the human spirit that burning down a fucking bronze elk in Portland, Oregon
I was on a conference call this week and someone said something fairly innocuous to me about me "leaving the dark side" (change in employer many moons ago)
About an hour after the meeting ended that person e mailed everyone in on the call to apologise for any offence caused by using the term "dark side"
Seriously...........................
Instead of a coverup, more likely it took the FBI a while to track her down because she was covering her tracks. Until she messed up OR the G-men got a lucky break.
Anyway, my guess is she's gonna start spilling the beans big-time. AND that it's just possible the Queen might find herself waiving bye-bye to His Foul Highness as his jet passes Windsor on the way to New York to be a "guest" of the US govt.
They arent backing down in any of these disputes.
https://twitter.com/MaryRoseMuseum/status/1278747426120220672?s=20
Anything else in the product of a twisted, perverted mind. So why didn't I think of it?!?!
Hitler idolised the tall blond Aryan, as we know. Yet Hitler was definitely short, and dark haired, and probably grey eyed rather than blue (accounts vary)
There are a lot ofquite cogent theories that Hitler was probably the product of mixed Slavic/Celtic descent, FWIW, rather than Germanic.
So a comparison with the Georgian but Russian-speaking Stalin is not inapt
https://twitter.com/MatthewGalanty/status/1277800869967335425?s=20
Don't have the test breakdown yet, but must be either lots of surveillance tests, or max possible mailed tests (Leicester?)
Xi's not crazy enough to truly provoke US or Taiwan or Korea (North or South) & Japan. Is in bed (sort of) with Russia. As for Vietnam, well Chinese tried that back in late 70s and got a bloody nose (not as bad but something like Russia versus Finland in Winter War).
So whose left to kick around? India.
See: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_09-508.pdf
So the thinking is, the grey eyes suggest a hint of north European blonde Nordic ancestry, but the short stature and dark looks indicate a predominance of Slavic/Celtic maybe even Balkan genes.
Hitler certainly would not have featured in any Leni Riefesntahl films as an Aryan ideal
I have always wanted to believe that using the media to manipulate votes was a non-starter and irrelevant and would bounce off one's numeracy, literacy, scepticism and logic. But the virus particularly has made me become aware of a larger world in which that is commonly untrue.
For instance, from Bournemouth beach to Brexit, I begin to understand a relative saying "If the world's most powerful man (Obama) says we ought to stay then I'm voting for Brexit".
This of course what the world's greatest terrorist (Putin) wanted.
And other examples too numerous to detail.
https://twitter.com/DHSCgovuk/status/1278786212279566336
2016-17 - Chelsea (+52 v +60 for Spurs)
2015-16 - Leicester (+32 v +34 for Spurs)
2014-15 - Chelsea (+41 v +45 for Man City)
2008-09 - Man Utd (+44 v +50 for Liverpool)
2002-03 - Man Utd (+40 v +43 for Arsenal)
1997-98 - Arsenal (+35 v +47 for Man Utd)
1996-97 - Man Utd (+32 v +33 for Newcastle)
1994-95 - Blackburn (+41 v +49 for Man Utd)
1980-81 - Aston Villa (+32 v +34 for Ipswich)
It's a bit like first past the post. Where and when you get the goals matters as much as how many you get overall.
Only 56 people tested though
And Scousers 4 down
I just want to cover off something around Ghislane Maxwell. The conspiracy aspects of the whole Epstein thing carries weight but can you even suggest its a conspiracy any more? Many aspects of the case are well known and Occams Razor will apply. This is going to widen to public officials either directly involved or who turned a blind eye. The FBI people on the case include people who work in corruption investigations which suggests the latter.
Epstein had murky links at home and abroad, as well as being a 'friend and confidant' of high profile people, with not always desirable people & organisations. Maxwell is in the same boat, connections elsewhere that could not not be described as all glamour of the society hobnobbing but rather more 'professional' in their purpose. Epstein was wealthy, but was he really that wealthy just being the advisor he claimed to be or something else?
This will rumble on and on, for years.
The woke crew have started to argue among themselves over who is purest.
But don't let me get in the way of your hysteria.
Ah.
Thanks for the clarification!
This is entirely distinct from "Teutonic ideal" concept of the creation of an ubermench.
Hitler was a German nationalist because at the time, and throughout the history of the HRE, "Austrians" were considered just germans of the eastern march.
Stalin was not a Russian nationalist in the same sense.
Next actual match is in October
He also seems to be pushing Dodds forward a lot, who I am sure is very capable, but is also Scottish, a place where Labour has a mountain to climb.