politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » 5% of voters show they shouldn’t be allowed out of the hous

kle4 said:

justin124 said:

In reality many ordinary members of the public - who rarely tune into politics at all - have not the slightest idea as to what is meant by 'rightwing' or 'leftwing'.

I'm not convinced many of the politically aware do either. People could say the same about things like 'socialist', 'liberal' or 'conservative'.

Basically they have picked up that Corbyn is seen as extreme and beyond the pale by GuardioBBCisttas and automatically assume that he must therefore be rigbt wing?

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Its hardly surprising. Most people think Hitler was right wing rather than extreme left wing despite the fact that he ran the German nations Socialist Workers Party.

I can call a dog a zebra, it doesn't make it a zebra.

Thanks to Labour though you can call something quite innocuous racist and thanks to the ludicrous McPherson defintion that anything that is perceived as racist is racist, you can on this issue turn a dog into a zebra.

I'd be careful with Zebra - they have the black lives matter and the white lives matter gangs at their back. Oddly though you can cross them quite safely.

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://twitter.com/zgazda66/status/774993814025011200

Oh.

BETTING POST

What are the odds on Tim Kaine being the next POTUS - which he will be if Clinton wins in November then snuffs it before she takes office in Jan 2017?

This might be irrelevant - but some more polls on 538 . . .

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Its hardly surprising. Most people think Hitler was right wing rather than extreme left wing despite the fact that he ran the German nations Socialist Workers Party.

I can call a dog a zebra, it doesn't make it a zebra.

I am struggling to get my head around the fact that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy. Who'd have thought it?

I'm sure we've had this debate before, but which of Hitler's policies do you regard as being objectively right wing?

His visceral anti-bolshevism? There was a good piece by Tim Stanley on why considering Hitler as left wing is silly. Can't be bothered to find it though.

Speedy said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Its very strange how CNN have the cute girl giving Clinton a hug video up, but not the more worrying fainting one. They are normally so fast with their BREAKING NEWS..

I think it was CNBC who paid Chelsea Clinton $600,000 a year, for three years, to be an anchor. In which time she filed about a dozen reports, all of which were mind boggling awful interviews with global do-gooders.

I think that may deserve to be a campaign issue.

"Would you pay $600k a year for this?"

Although it's Hillary's daughter not Hillary herself, dragging in a family member maybe off limits, but corruption seems to be a family issue not just Hillary's.

Why would they pay so much for basically an intern, if they didn't owe a favour to mum and dad?

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Trump needs to be up against Hillary to have even an outside chance, doesn't he?

Yep. If either candidate withdraws their party will win a landslide.

There have to be a few men in grey suits somewhere in the Democratic Party who know it's time for her to stand aside.

Certainly some bettors agree with you. Latest Betfair mid-prices:

Clinton 1.575
Trump 3.425
Sanders 28
Biden 77.5

That's a 5% implied probability of a Democratic winner who isn't the current Democratic candidate. And we're well into September. Wow!

If Trump withdraws, the Republican replacement - assuming they are chosen in time to be able to win 270 electoral seats - is likely to win by a landslide, yes. (Which would be a highly profitable outcome for me personally, except if they are someone completely unexpected.)

If Clinton withdraws, I would dearly love to watch Bernie Sanders win a landslide. I would cry tears of joy to witness the US population embrace socialism, and at long last to hear it tell the US elite where it can shove its dog-eat-dog ideology. But unfortunately that wouldn't be a foregone conclusion. Trump is extremely well known. He is like a cartoon character. I would say he is similar to a big figure in professional wrestling, but he actually is a big figure in professional wrestling. Sadly he would be in with a good chance of defeating Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, or Tim Kaine.

(Side note: please can we have some good conspiracy theories about the Jesuit Tim Kaine. I mean the SJs have already taken the papal throne, right?)

There is also the possibility that both candidates withdraw. In which case...who knows? Tradition would suggest a Republican victory, but maybe having been thrown out of the window tradition would have little chance of re-entering through the door?

Things are likely to heat up as the date of the first debate approaches.

FrankBooth said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Its hardly surprising. Most people think Hitler was right wing rather than extreme left wing despite the fact that he ran the German nations Socialist Workers Party.

I can call a dog a zebra, it doesn't make it a zebra.

I am struggling to get my head around the fact that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy. Who'd have thought it?

I'm sure we've had this debate before, but which of Hitler's policies do you regard as being objectively right wing?

His visceral anti-bolshevism? There was a good piece by Tim Stanley on why considering Hitler as left wing is silly. Can't be bothered to find it though.

Was he as anti biolshevik as the mensheviks?

I'd argue it was competition for the same power base that encouraged him to be so intrinsically opposed to them

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Its hardly surprising. Most people think Hitler was right wing rather than extreme left wing despite the fact that he ran the German nations Socialist Workers Party.

I can call a dog a zebra, it doesn't make it a zebra.

I am struggling to get my head around the fact that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy. Who'd have thought it?

I'm sure we've had this debate before, but which of Hitler's policies do you regard as being objectively right wing?

The large scale privatisation programmes and the significant increases in spending on the armed forces are two that come to mind. Also the restrictions placed on trade union activity.

It was corporatism that drove the union restrictions (and the ownership point). Corporatism is not particularly right wing.

Increased spending on armed forces is characteristic of all dictatorships, not just right wing ones

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Its hardly surprising. Most people think Hitler was right wing rather than extreme left wing despite the fact that he ran the German nations Socialist Workers Party.

I can call a dog a zebra, it doesn't make it a zebra.

I am struggling to get my head around the fact that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy. Who'd have thought it?

I'm sure we've had this debate before, but which of Hitler's policies do you regard as being objectively right wing?

The large scale privatisation programmes and the significant increases in spending on the armed forces are two that come to mind. Also the restrictions placed on trade union activity.

It was corporatism that drove the union restrictions (and the ownership point). Corporatism is not particularly right wing.

Increased spending on armed forces is characteristic of all dictatorships, not just right wing ones

Which leaves the privatisation :-)

As I say, though, nazism/fascism is not on the normal political spectrum.

PlatoSaid said:

The comments under The Fix article are most amusing

" It's pretty obvious that Hillary passed away some time ago and has been replaced by a intermittently malfunctioning cyborg. Although, seriously, how could you tell the difference? Somehow Putin is involved in this."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/11/hillary-clintons-health-just-became-a-real-issue-in-the-presidential-campaign/?postshare=4011473608703641&tid=ss_tw</blockquot

The stasis field was failing and she was about to reassume her true form. After a session in a nearby pod her mammalian outer skin has been repaired.

Dromedary said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Trump needs to be up against Hillary to have even an outside chance, doesn't he?

Yep. If either candidate withdraws their party will win a landslide.

There have to be a few men in grey suits somewhere in the Democratic Party who know it's time for her to stand aside.

Certainly some bettors agree with you. Latest Betfair mid-prices:

Clinton 1.575
Trump 3.425
Sanders 28
Biden 77.5

That's a 5% implied probability of a Democratic winner who isn't the current Democratic candidate. And we're well into September. Wow!

If Trump withdraws, the Republican replacement - assuming they are chosen in time to be able to win 270 electoral seats - is likely to win by a landslide, yes. (Which would be a highly profitable outcome for me personally, except if they are someone completely unexpected.)

If Clinton withdraws, I would dearly love to watch Bernie Sanders win a landslide. I would cry tears of joy to witness the US population embrace socialism, and at long last to hear it tell the US elite where it can shove its dog-eat-dog ideology. But unfortunately that wouldn't be a foregone conclusion. Trump is extremely well known. He is like a cartoon character. I would say he is similar to a big figure in professional wrestling, but he actually is a big figure in professional wrestling. Sadly he would be in with a good chance of defeating Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, or Tim Kaine.

(Side note: please can we have some good conspiracy theories about the Jesuit Tim Kaine. I mean the SJs have already taken the papal throne, right?)

There is also the possibility that both candidates withdraw. In which case...who knows? Tradition would suggest a Republican victory, but maybe having been thrown out of the window tradition would have little chance of re-entering through the door?

Things are likely to heat up as the date of the first debate approaches.

The great tragedy for the Dems is that Biden wouldn't stand, or was persuaded not to, in order to hand it to Hillary.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

BETTING POST

What are the odds on Tim Kaine being the next POTUS - which he will be if Clinton wins in November then snuffs it before she takes office in Jan 2017?

Well low, very low, 5% maybe less, but's it's above zero.

If Hillary makes it to election day and wins, she is leaving the White House only dead or under arrest.

I think there are higher chances that Kaine or Pence become president before 2020 due to impeachment of either President Hillary or President Trump.

Either way it looks like 4 miserable years for America.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Its very strange how CNN have the cute girl giving Clinton a hug video up, but not the more worrying fainting one. They are normally so fast with their BREAKING NEWS..

The fainting one is the first thing you see on their webpage about it http://us.cnn.com/2016/09/11/politics/hillary-clinton-health/index.html

Dadge said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Its very strange how CNN have the cute girl giving Clinton a hug video up, but not the more worrying fainting one. They are normally so fast with their BREAKING NEWS..

The fainting one is the first thing you see on their webpage about it http://us.cnn.com/2016/09/11/politics/hillary-clinton-health/index.html

I meant CNN breaking news twitter feed.

@Moses:

Can I quote the great Hugh Gaitskell on Britain joining the EEC: it would mean "the end of Britain as an independent European state, the end of a thousand years of history! You may say, all right! Let it end! But, my goodness, it's a decision that needs a little care and thought."

Plenty of people, on both left and right, made the sovereignty arguments plain in 1975. It's just that the UK economy was regarded as so sick, and the continental economies so strong, that those arguments were relegated to the sidelines.

Speedy said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Its very strange how CNN have the cute girl giving Clinton a hug video up, but not the more worrying fainting one. They are normally so fast with their BREAKING NEWS..

I think it was CNBC who paid Chelsea Clinton $600,000 a year, for three years, to be an anchor. In which time she filed about a dozen reports, all of which were mind boggling awful interviews with global do-gooders.

I think that may deserve to be a campaign issue.

"Would you pay $600k a year for this?"

Although it's Hillary's daughter not Hillary herself, dragging in a family member maybe off limits, but corruption seems to be a family issue not just Hillary's.

The Trump campaign can't really play this card, as Donald Jr and Ivanka got similar (although probably less lucrative) jobs in the media off their dad.

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Its hardly surprising. Most people think Hitler was right wing rather than extreme left wing despite the fact that he ran the German nations Socialist Workers Party.

I can call a dog a zebra, it doesn't make it a zebra.

I am struggling to get my head around the fact that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy. Who'd have thought it?

I'm sure we've had this debate before, but which of Hitler's policies do you regard as being objectively right wing?

The large scale privatisation programmes and the significant increases in spending on the armed forces are two that come to mind. Also the restrictions placed on trade union activity.

Although I would not place nazism/fascism on any normal political spectrum. They stand apart. Francoism was right wing, though. Communism is definitely of the hard left.

Curiously, Franco's economic policies in the late Forties had much in common with those of Attlee's government, with widespread nationalisation, and prices and incomes policies. His support for a dominant position for the Catholic Church, the landowners, and army does put him in on the Right, though. He was always a pragmatist (accepting by the mid fifties that decolonisation was inevitable, for example),

In many ways, totalitarian states have more in common with each other than with parties of right or left in democracies that are theoretically on the same side.

I think that generally the whole idea of putting totalitarian states and their leaderships on the Left or Right is pretty much doomed to failure. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Franco and Mussolini were all Statists, intent on taking and centralising as much power as possible for the State and leaving the individual and communities effectively powerless and utterly dependent and at the mercy of the State. This is something that is symptomatic of both the extreme left and extreme right.

Richard_Tyndall said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Its hardly surprising. Most people think Hitler was right wing rather than extreme left wing despite the fact that he ran the German nations Socialist Workers Party.

I can call a dog a zebra, it doesn't make it a zebra.

I am struggling to get my head around the fact that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy. Who'd have thought it?

I'm sure we've had this debate before, but which of Hitler's policies do you regard as being objectively right wing?

The large scale privatisation programmes and the significant increases in spending on the armed forces are two that come to mind. Also the restrictions placed on trade union activity.

Although I would not place nazism/fascism on any normal political spectrum. They stand apart. Francoism was right wing, though. Communism is definitely of the hard left.

Not sure Communism as practiced in Russia is particularly left wing either - both Fascism and Communism can't really be measured on the classic scale as you suggest. (Communism as practiced by the early church is probably more definitionally left wing)

Don't know enough about Francoism - tried to read Antony Beaver book but got bogged down although it was interesting. Too busy at work.

This biography of Franco is superb:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Franco-Biography-Paul-Preston/dp/0006862101

Paul Preston's general history of the Spanish Civil War is also superb.

It's in my top three books on the Spanish Civil War.

Apologies re flippant post re Hilary Clinton's collapse, had intended to add a link, but my laptop crashed.

Had assumed that others had seen something at the same time as the posting.

PlatoSaid said:

YellowSubmarine said:

PlatoSaid said:

John Durant
If Hillary can't make it through a 9/11 ceremony, how is she supposed to make it through an actual 9/11?

GWB kept reading to a group of school children for 20mins. Then flew to Nebraska.

It wasn't like that at all - this first person account is a superb read.

Rep. Adam Putnam: There’s some debate within the staff that I can hear about how the president needs to address the nation. They’re saying, “We can’t do it here. You can’t do it in front of fifth-graders.” The Secret Service is saying, “You’re doing it here or you’re not doing at all. We’re not taking the time to do it somewhere else. We need to get him secure.”

Dave Wilkinson: We’re talking to folks back at the White House, we’re beginning to get the motorcade up and running, getting the motorcycle cops back, we’re ready to evacuate at a moment’s notice. All of a sudden it hits me: The president’s the only one who doesn’t know that this plane has hit the second building. It was a discomfort to all of us that the president didn’t know. The event was dragging on, and that’s when Andy Card came out.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/were-the-only-plane-in-the-sky-214230#ixzz4JyED5GoX
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

That is a fantastically detailed account, well worth reading through. If it was a wtf? day for the rest of us, let alone those in the middle of it all.

Charles said:

FrankBooth said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Its hardly surprising. Most people think Hitler was right wing rather than extreme left wing despite the fact that he ran the German nations Socialist Workers Party.

I can call a dog a zebra, it doesn't make it a zebra.

I am struggling to get my head around the fact that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy. Who'd have thought it?

I'm sure we've had this debate before, but which of Hitler's policies do you regard as being objectively right wing?

His visceral anti-bolshevism? There was a good piece by Tim Stanley on why considering Hitler as left wing is silly. Can't be bothered to find it though.

Was he as anti biolshevik as the mensheviks?

I'd argue it was competition for the same power base that encouraged him to be so intrinsically opposed to them

The Nazis' traditional support was mainly rural & lower middle class, the urban working class stayed largely with the Reds. After 1933 it didn't really matter of course.

rcs1000 said:

Speedy said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Its very strange how CNN have the cute girl giving Clinton a hug video up, but not the more worrying fainting one. They are normally so fast with their BREAKING NEWS..

I think it was CNBC who paid Chelsea Clinton $600,000 a year, for three years, to be an anchor. In which time she filed about a dozen reports, all of which were mind boggling awful interviews with global do-gooders.

I think that may deserve to be a campaign issue.

"Would you pay $600k a year for this?"

Although it's Hillary's daughter not Hillary herself, dragging in a family member maybe off limits, but corruption seems to be a family issue not just Hillary's.

The Trump campaign can't really play this card, as Donald Jr and Ivanka got similar (although probably less lucrative) jobs in the media off their dad.

In the case of Ivanka it's clear that she's a natural media performer and would have succeeded even with a low-profile dad.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Its hardly surprising. Most people think Hitler was right wing rather than extreme left wing despite the fact that he ran the German nations Socialist Workers Party.

I can call a dog a zebra, it doesn't make it a zebra.

I am struggling to get my head around the fact that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy. Who'd have thought it?

I'm sure we've had this debate before, but which of Hitler's policies do you regard as being objectively right wing?

The large scale privatisation programmes and the significant increases in spending on the armed forces are two that come to mind. Also the restrictions placed on trade union activity.

Although I would not place nazism/fascism on any normal political spectrum. They stand apart. Francoism was right wing, though. Communism is definitely of the hard left.

Curiously, Franco's economic policies in the late Forties had much in common with those of Attlee's government, with widespread nationalisation, and prices and incomes policies. His support for a dominant position for the Catholic Church, the landowners, and army does put him in on the Right, though. He was always a pragmatist (accepting by the mid fifties that decolonisation was inevitable, for example),

In many ways, totalitarian states have more in common with each other than with parties of right or left in democracies that are theoretically on the same side.

I think that generally the whole idea of putting totalitarian states and their leaderships on the Left or Right is pretty much doomed to failure. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Franco and Mussolini were all Statists, intent on taking and centralising as much power as possible for the State and leaving the individual and communities effectively powerless and utterly dependent and at the mercy of the State. This is something that is symptomatic of both the extreme left and extreme right.

I agree. And although Franco wanted the Catholic Church to be powerful, he also wanted it to be an arm of the State. That's not so different from the Soviet attitude towards the Orthodox Church after 1941, or the modern Chinese attitude to the Christian churches.

Clinton 5% ahead in WP poll.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/11/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-presidential-poll/index.html?sr=twCNN091116hillary-clinton-donald-trump-presidential-poll0451PMStoryLink

Sean_F said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sean_F said:

SouthamObserver said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Its hardly surprising. Most people think Hitler was right wing rather than extreme left wing despite the fact that he ran the German nations Socialist Workers Party.

I can call a dog a zebra, it doesn't make it a zebra.

I am struggling to get my head around the fact that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy. Who'd have thought it?

I'm sure we've had this debate before, but which of Hitler's policies do you regard as being objectively right wing?

The large scale privatisation programmes and the significant increases in spending on the armed forces are two that come to mind. Also the restrictions placed on trade union activity.

Although I would not place nazism/fascism on any normal political spectrum. They stand apart. Francoism was right wing, though. Communism is definitely of the hard left.

Curiously, Franco's economic policies in the late Forties had much in common with those of Attlee's government, with widespread nationalisation, and prices and incomes policies. His support for a dominant position for the Catholic Church, the landowners, and army does put him in on the Right, though. He was always a pragmatist (accepting by the mid fifties that decolonisation was inevitable, for example),

In many ways, totalitarian states have more in common with each other than with parties of right or left in democracies that are theoretically on the same side.

I think that generally the whole idea of putting totalitarian states and their leaderships on the Left or Right is pretty much doomed to failure. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Franco and Mussolini were all Statists, intent on taking and centralising as much power as possible for the State and leaving the individual and communities effectively powerless and utterly dependent and at the mercy of the State. This is something that is symptomatic of both the extreme left and extreme right.

I agree. And although Franco wanted the Catholic Church to be powerful, he also wanted it to be an arm of the State. That's not so different from the Soviet attitude towards the Orthodox Church after 1941, or the modern Chinese attitude to the Christian churches.

In the end, I agree that statists are statists. The reason that Hitler is thought of as right wing is because he sought to contrast himself with the hard left; Franco's support was taken from the political right.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Is there a breakdown of the 1932 results somewhere? In terms of where or who voted for the parties?

Not that I know of.
I've read about from where the Nazis drew their support so many times I take it for granted, which may be a dangerous thing of course!

This para from Wiki states the accepted view I guess.

'In the 1920s the Nazi Party expanded beyond its Bavarian base. Catholic Bavaria maintained its right-wing nostalgia for a Catholic monarch[citation needed]; and Westphalia, along with working-class "Red Berlin", were always the Nazis' weakest areas electorally, even during the Third Reich itself. The areas of strongest Nazi support were in rural Protestant areas such as Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, and East Prussia. Depressed working-class areas such as Thuringia also produced a strong Nazi vote, while the workers of the Ruhr and Hamburg largely remained loyal to the Social Democrats, the Communist Party of Germany, or the Catholic Centre Party. Nuremberg remained a Nazi Party stronghold, and the first Nuremberg Rally was held there in 1927. These rallies soon became massive displays of Nazi paramilitary power and attracted many recruits. The Nazis' strongest appeal was to the lower middle-classes – farmers, public servants, teachers, small businessmen – who had suffered most from the inflation of the 1920s, so who feared Bolshevism more than anything else. The small business class was receptive to Hitler's antisemitism, since it blamed Jewish big business for its economic problems. University students, disappointed at being too young to have served in the War of 1914–1918, and attracted by the Nazis' radical rhetoric, also became a strong Nazi constituency. By 1929, the party had 130,000 members.'

http://tinyurl.com/zspp5w6

Sean_F said:

<
I agree. And although Franco wanted the Catholic Church to be powerful, he also wanted it to be an arm of the State. That's not so different from the Soviet attitude towards the Orthodox Church after 1941, or the modern Chinese attitude to the Christian churches.

Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church is the only one comparable.

Soviets and Chinese did it for the same reason as Henry V111 - to give the impression of a church to keep the religious happy but tightly controlled to stop it threatening the state.

Franco and Putin saw/see the church as an integral arm of the state and their philosophy.

This article is enlightening.

https://20committee.com/2014/12/27/putins-orthodox-jihad/

Will Hilary Clinton match John Henry Harrision's record for the shortest Presidential term, 32 days.

PlatoSaid said:

And another angle

#hillaryshealth BRAND NEW VIDEO ANGLE. THIS WAS NOT HEAT. SHE HAS BRAIN/CIRCULATION PROBLEMS https://t.co/bw61rMa4DT

I think it's the original video reversed.

williamglenn said:

PlatoSaid said:

And another angle

#hillaryshealth BRAND NEW VIDEO ANGLE. THIS WAS NOT HEAT. SHE HAS BRAIN/CIRCULATION PROBLEMS https://t.co/bw61rMa4DT

I think it's the original video reversed.

It is the original video reversed and zoomed in.

People are trying to cash in on this.

PlatoSaid said:

RobD said:

PlatoSaid said:

And another angle

#hillaryshealth BRAND NEW VIDEO ANGLE. THIS WAS NOT HEAT. SHE HAS BRAIN/CIRCULATION PROBLEMS https://t.co/bw61rMa4DT

Worse still? Scared to even watch.

She looks almost unconscious - if that were me, I'd be taking it seriously and going to hospital. The 90mins she went AWOL just adds to it.

Maybe this is just the first time it's happened on camera but is actually a regular occurrence that is part of a manageable condition.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Charles said:

FrankBooth said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Its hardly surprising. Most people think Hitler was right wing rather than extreme left wing despite the fact that he ran the German nations Socialist Workers Party.

I can call a dog a zebra, it doesn't make it a zebra.

I am struggling to get my head around the fact that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy. Who'd have thought it?

I'm sure we've had this debate before, but which of Hitler's policies do you regard as being objectively right wing?

His visceral anti-bolshevism? There was a good piece by Tim Stanley on why considering Hitler as left wing is silly. Can't be bothered to find it though.

Was he as anti biolshevik as the mensheviks?

I'd argue it was competition for the same power base that encouraged him to be so intrinsically opposed to them

The Nazis' traditional support was mainly rural & lower middle class, the urban working class stayed largely with the Reds. After 1933 it didn't really matter of course.

Is there a breakdown of the 1932 results somewhere? In terms of where or who voted for the parties?

The Nazis won 37% and 33% in 1932 (Hitler won 36% in the Presidential election.). Nazi support peaked at just over 50% in East Prussia and Schleswig. It ran at 40-50% in Eastern Germany (outside Berlin) Franconia, and North Western Germany. They were weakest in Southern Bavaria, Berlin, Hamburg and the Rhineland (in Bavaria, right wing voters were mainly Catholics and monarchists who supported Catholic parties, in Berlin and Hamburg, Communists and Socialists were strong, in the Rhineland, the Catholic and left wing parties were all strong).

williamglenn said:

PlatoSaid said:

RobD said:

PlatoSaid said:

And another angle

#hillaryshealth BRAND NEW VIDEO ANGLE. THIS WAS NOT HEAT. SHE HAS BRAIN/CIRCULATION PROBLEMS https://t.co/bw61rMa4DT

Worse still? Scared to even watch.

She looks almost unconscious - if that were me, I'd be taking it seriously and going to hospital. The 90mins she went AWOL just adds to it.

Maybe this is just the first time it's happened on camera but is actually a regular occurrence that is part of a manageable condition.

That's the big worry. Although May simirlarly has a medical condition, but it doesn't seem to affect her as much.

PlatoSaid said:

RobD said:

PlatoSaid said:

And another angle

#hillaryshealth BRAND NEW VIDEO ANGLE. THIS WAS NOT HEAT. SHE HAS BRAIN/CIRCULATION PROBLEMS https://t.co/bw61rMa4DT

Worse still? Scared to even watch.

She looks almost unconscious - if that were me, I'd be taking it seriously and going to hospital. The 90mins she went AWOL just adds to it.

Everyone is going to make it an issue and talk about it, some may even make a " Weekend at Bernie's" parody , especially on the 15h anniversary of this:

https://twitter.com/DoctorSyntax/status/775020950358196225

MarqueeMark said:

Hillary's "overheating" cover is surely just that. We all know that the Lizards thrive in heat...

That clip is horrible to watch. She doesn't just keel over, she does something strange. I agree about the rumours now elevated from conspiracy mags to MSM.

Theuniondivvie said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Is there a breakdown of the 1932 results somewhere? In terms of where or who voted for the parties?

Not that I know of.
I've read about from where the Nazis drew their support so many times I take it for granted, which may be a dangerous thing of course!

This para from Wiki states the accepted view I guess.

'In the 2010s the UKIP Party expanded beyond its Essex base. Middle England maintained its right-wing nostalgia for a Grammar Schools; and Scotland, along with working-class "Red London", were always UKIPs weakest areas electorally, even during the Labour Government of 1997-2010 The areas of strongest UKIP support were in rural areas such as Somerset, Kent, Lincolnshire, and East Anglia. Depressed working-class areas such as Doncaster also produced a strong UKIP vote, while the workers of the Valleys and Manchester largely remained loyal to the Liberal Democrats, the Labour Party, or the Green Party. Clacton remained a UKIP Party stronghold, and the first UKIP Rally was held there in 2007. These rallies soon became massive displays of UKIP power and attracted many recruits. UKIP's strongest appeal was to the lower middle-classes – farmers, public servants, teachers, small businessmen – who had suffered most from the house price inflation of the 2000s, so who feared Labour policies more than anything else. The small business class was receptive to Farages anticorporatism, since it blamed big business for its economic problems. Late middle aged people , disappointed at being too young to have voted in the referendum of 1975 and attracted by the UKIP radical rhetoric, also became a strong UKIPconstituency. By 2015 the party had 40,000 members.'

http://tinyurl.com/zspp5w6

Edited the article above to change a few names and dates lol

Sandpit said:

PlatoSaid said:

Number Cruncher Sports
At the London #Paralympics, #GBR had 15 gold medals at the END of day four. Right now they have 20 and it's only 3pm on day four #Rio2016

Go Team GB! A clear second in the medals table too, wonderful to see.

Bloody benefit cheats ;-)

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Is there a breakdown of the 1932 results somewhere? In terms of where or who voted for the parties?

Not that I know of.
I've read about from where the Nazis drew their support so many times I take it for granted, which may be a dangerous thing of course!

This para from Wiki states the accepted view I guess.

'In the 2010s the UKIP Party expanded beyond its Essex base. Middle England maintained its right-wing nostalgia for a Grammar Schools; and Scotland, along with working-class "Red London", were always UKIPs weakest areas electorally, even during the Labour Government of 1997-2010 The areas of strongest UKIP support were in rural areas such as Somerset, Kent, Lincolnshire, and East Anglia. Depressed working-class areas such as Doncaster also produced a strong UKIP vote, while the workers of the Valleys and Manchester largely remained loyal to the Liberal Democrats, the Labour Party, or the Conservative Party. Clacton remained a UKIP Party stronghold, and the first UKIP Rally was held there in 2007. These rallies soon became massive displays of UKIP power and attracted many recruits. UKIP's strongest appeal was to the lower middle-classes – farmers, public servants, teachers, small businessmen – who had suffered most from the house price inflation of the 2000s, so who feared Labour policies more than anything else. The small business class was receptive to Farages anticorporatism, since it blamed big business for its economic problems. Late middle aged people , disappointed at being too young to have voted in the referendum of 1975 and attracted by the UKIP radical rhetoric, also became a strong UKIPconstituency. By 2015 the party had 40,000 members.'

http://tinyurl.com/zspp5w6

Edited the article above to change a few names and dates lol

You're confident that the Nazi Party is the comparison you want to draw Paul are you secretly Ken Livingstone?

Speedy said:

PlatoSaid said:

RobD said:

PlatoSaid said:

And another angle

#hillaryshealth BRAND NEW VIDEO ANGLE. THIS WAS NOT HEAT. SHE HAS BRAIN/CIRCULATION PROBLEMS https://t.co/bw61rMa4DT

Worse still? Scared to even watch.

She looks almost unconscious - if that were me, I'd be taking it seriously and going to hospital. The 90mins she went AWOL just adds to it.

Everyone is going to make it an issue and talk about it, some may even make a " Weekend at Bernie's" parody , especially on the 15h anniversary of this:

https://twitter.com/DoctorSyntax/status/775020950358196225

for me the best of the stories:

theonion.com/article/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rule-222

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Sandpit said:

PlatoSaid said:

Number Cruncher Sports
At the London #Paralympics, #GBR had 15 gold medals at the END of day four. Right now they have 20 and it's only 3pm on day four #Rio2016

Go Team GB! A clear second in the medals table too, wonderful to see.

Bloody benefit cheats ;-)

Interesting to see Ukraine in third place, according to the Ukrainian Mrs Sandpit they have managed to unearth some good Paralympians in the weeks leading up to the Games...

I hope we aren't going to see any repeat along the lines of the disgraceful Spanish Basketball team.

I'm on the West Coast this week. I was planning to be in SF on Wednesday evening, but may now go the Hillary rally in Nevada. I wonder if I can go as a Politicalbetting affiliated reporter

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Its hardly surprising. Most people think Hitler was right wing rather than extreme left wing despite the fact that he ran the German nations Socialist Workers Party.

I can call a dog a zebra, it doesn't make it a zebra.

I am struggling to get my head around the fact that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy. Who'd have thought it?

I'm sure we've had this debate before, but which of Hitler's policies do you regard as being objectively right wing?

The large scale privatisation programmes and the significant increases in spending on the armed forces are two that come to mind. Also the restrictions placed on trade union activity.

It was corporatism that drove the union restrictions (and the ownership point). Corporatism is not particularly right wing.

Increased spending on armed forces is characteristic of all dictatorships, not just right wing ones

Which leaves the privatisation :-)

As I say, though, nazism/fascism is not on the normal political spectrum.

"and the ownership point"