politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tips for WH2020: Bullock, Hickenlooper – and Trump
Comments
-
If 25th is applied (massive if) - Pence is President. He wouldn't take their precious automatic rifles away either.Jonathan said:
Some of the stuff coming out of the NRA is quite full on.rottenborough said:Wow. Hodges are gone over the top this morning:
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/9216602168900689920 -
Reading Dan Hodges’ twitter feed is like reading PB whenever there’s racism or sexism scandal and understanding why so many have a bad image of Tories.dixiedean said:
Hodges is getting tedious. His one redeeming feature is that he is almost always wrong.rottenborough said:Wow. Hodges are gone over the top this morning:
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/921660216890068992
0 -
The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbour in 1941 so if it was still fighting Japan under a different President it would likely have still fought the Nazis. Let us not forget the UK fought the Battle of Britain essentially alone in 1940 apart from some Poles, Czechs and free French in exiledavid_herdson said:
As noted elsewhere, far from being the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed, the absence of it in 1940 may well have been the saviour of freedom, at least in Europe.TheScreamingEagles said:
All because vindictive and loser Republicans considered FDR serving sixteen years, the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed.david_herdson said:
That may be true but the FLOTUS starts with more goodwill and lower expectations from the public than a career politician. That said, I did wobble as to whether 25/1 was value. I don't think it is because I really don't think she wants to run and having seen the job from the inside, must know that she's not really qualified and would find it impossible to distance herself from questions as to whether she was running as a proxy. That (1) may be partly true and (2) may not be a wholly a bad thing but it'd still be difficult.Metatron said:If Michele Obama stood she surely would be the one to beat and given that (surprisingly) very few people chose to stand against Hilary Clinton who would stand against Michele except a far left candidate.
Note at the last 2 Democratic Conventions Michele gave give or take Bill Clinton the best received speech
The 22nd Amendment is a very stupid thing.
I mean really, is that the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed?
A less capable and less confident president than FDR - and whoever replaced him would have been both - might easily have condemned Britain to having to seek terms as the money, and hence the equipment, ran out. Even had that not been the case, it might have been the Red Army rather than the Allies that kicked the Nazis out of Germany, France, the low countries and Italy. France and Italy might have got away with a Yugoslav outcome given the size of the native Communist parties; the rest would have had direct rule. Germany would have been deindustrialised and the mass killings would have run into millions. With no European democracies outside the British Isles, Nato would likely not have existed and after the defeat of Japan, the US could easily have slipped back into isolationism mixed with an even more rabid domestic Commuphobia and social conservatism.0 -
There’s an interesting parallel with the crisis in Australia when Gough Whitlam was dismissed by Sir John Kerr. Kerr had to deceive Whitlam about his intentions because the PM had the power to remove him.rottenborough said:
Yep. Seems the NRA may be trying to head off moves on the 25th amendment front.williamglenn said:
He’s reacting to the NRA video TSE posted.rottenborough said:Wow. Hodges are gone over the top this morning:
Dangerous times.
25th seems very unlikely, given Trump appoints the Cabinet, but who the hell knows anything anymore.0 -
No more than have a bad image of non-Tories, since last I checked the main two parties are about as popular as one another, give or take a few percent. And bad images of parties are rarely deserving (at least not to the extent such an image exists), just ask the LDs. People take the extreme views, then extrapolate that to everyone who might support that party, then say 'X is why I hate Y', even if most Y are not like that, making the justification of X pretty much just a covering excuse for dislike.The_Apocalypse said:
Reading Dan Hodges’ twitter feed is like reading PB whenever there’s racism or sexism scandal and understanding why so many have a bad image of Tories.dixiedean said:
Hodges is getting tedious. His one redeeming feature is that he is almost always wrong.rottenborough said:Wow. Hodges are gone over the top this morning:
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/9216602168900689920 -
The Addams family have found their next MorticiaTheScreamingEagles said:
All because vindictive and loser Republicans considered FDR serving sixteen years, the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed.david_herdson said:
That may be true but the FLOTUS starts with more goodwill and lower expectations from the public than a career politician. That said, I did wobble as to whether 25/1 was value. I don't think it is because I really don't think she wants to run and having seen the job from the inside, must know that she's not really qualified and would find it impossible to distance herself from questions as to whether she was running as a proxy. That (1) may be partly true and (2) may not be a wholly a bad thing but it'd still be difficult.Metatron said:If Michele Obama stood she surely would be the one to beat and given that (surprisingly) very few people chose to stand against Hilary Clinton who would stand against Michele except a far left candidate.
Note at the last 2 Democratic Conventions Michele gave give or take Bill Clinton the best received speech
The 22nd Amendment is a very stupid thing.
I mean really, is that the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed?
Talking of idiotic Republicans
https://twitter.com/NRATV/status/921390510576562176
https://twitter.com/Mikel_Jollett/status/921439177903808512
https://cdn.cliqueinc.com/posts/75550/morticia-addams-75550-1477685485-fb.1200x627uc.jpg0 -
Some very interesting maps here:Jonathan said:
Some of the stuff coming out of the NRA is quite full on.rottenborough said:Wow. Hodges are gone over the top this morning:
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/921660216890068992
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/gun-ownership-partisan-divide.html
Being a gun owning household (or not) was a stronger predictor of voting Republican than anything else, including race, religiosity or education. Gun ownership there is very much a marker of other political values.0 -
Many on the Left aren’t complaining about how the other side see them though. It’s often those on the right who are complaining of how negatively the other side see them, and believing that that dislike is unreasonable.kle4 said:
No more than have a bad image of non-Tories, since last I checked the main two parties are about as popular as one another, give or take a few percent.The_Apocalypse said:
Reading Dan Hodges’ twitter feed is like reading PB whenever there’s racism or sexism scandal and understanding why so many have a bad image of Tories.dixiedean said:
Hodges is getting tedious. His one redeeming feature is that he is almost always wrong.rottenborough said:Wow. Hodges are gone over the top this morning:
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/921660216890068992
from your edited post: the dislike may not be all justified, but the reality is, is that brand image - what people associate a party with as opposed to policy - also contributes to who they decide to vote for. In that sense with social media, how both parties’ supporters conduct themselves is probably going to be judged as part of that brand image. I’m sure some aren’t voting Labour because they see their supporters as SJWs or something like that, for example.
0 -
There would certainly need to be plenty of deception!williamglenn said:
There’s an interesting parallel with the crisis in Australia when Gough Whitlam was dismissed by Sir John Kerr. Kerr had to deceive Whitlam about his intentions because the PM had the power to remove him.rottenborough said:
Yep. Seems the NRA may be trying to head off moves on the 25th amendment front.williamglenn said:
He’s reacting to the NRA video TSE posted.rottenborough said:Wow. Hodges are gone over the top this morning:
Dangerous times.
25th seems very unlikely, given Trump appoints the Cabinet, but who the hell knows anything anymore.
25th requires Veep and 8 Cabinet members. Seems a very tall order, unless it is absolutely clear his health has gone completely.
Some interesting details in this article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/10/19/how-do-you-get-rid-of-trump-an-election-not-the-25th-amendment/?utm_term=.23be8f00879f0 -
Japanese elections tomorrow. Abe should win due to the huge opposition split. though the new Constitutional Democratic Party (centre-left, allied with social democrats and communists) seems to be surging and might be a challenger next time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_general_election,_20170 -
Not quite! In 1940 we had Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, all self governing, as allies. As well as these we had the Colonies or Protectorates of India, Malaya, Africa, West Indies and Middle East. Hardly alone, we had a quarter of the world in terms of landmass and population on our side.HYUFD said:
The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbour in 1941 so if it was still fighting Japan under a different President it would likely have still fought the Nazis. Let us not forget the UK fought the Battle of Britain essentially alone in 1940 apart from some Poles, Czechs and free French in exiledavid_herdson said:
As noted elsewhere, far from being the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed, the absence of it in 1940 may well have been the saviour of freedom, at least in Europe.TheScreamingEagles said:
All because vindictive and loser Republicans considered FDR serving sixteen years, the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed.david_herdson said:
That may be true but theMetatron said:If Michele Obama stood she surely would be the one to beat and given that (surprisingly) very few people chose to stand against Hilary Clinton who would stand against Michele except a far left candidate.
Note at the last 2 Democratic Conventions Michele gave give or take Bill Clinton the best received speech
The 22nd Amendment is a very stupid thing.
I mean really, is that the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed?
A less capable and less confident president than FDR - and whoever replaced him would have been both - might easily have condemned Britain to having to seek terms as the money, and hence the equipment, ran out. Even had that not been the case, it might have been the Red Army rather than the Allies that kicked the Nazis out of Germany, France, the low countries and Italy. France and Italy might have got away with a Yugoslav outcome given the size of the native Communist parties; the rest would have had direct rule. Germany would have been deindustrialised and the mass killings would have run into millions. With no European democracies outside the British Isles, Nato would likely not have existed and after the defeat of Japan, the US could easily have slipped back into isolationism mixed with an even more rabid domestic Commuphobia and social conservatism.0 -
While I agree with your last paragraph, I'm not at all convinced that the behaviour of Conservative supporters in general is worse than the behaviour of Labour supporters.The_Apocalypse said:
Many on the Left aren’t complaining about how the other side see them though. It’s often those on the right who are complaining of how negatively the other side see them, and believing that that dislike is unreasonable.kle4 said:
No more than have a bad image of non-Tories, since last I checked the main two parties are about as popular as one another, give or take a few percent.The_Apocalypse said:
Reading Dan Hodges’ twitter feed is like reading PB whenever there’s racism or sexism scandal and understanding why so many have a bad image of Tories.dixiedean said:
Hodges is getting tedious. His one redeeming feature is that he is almost always wrong.rottenborough said:Wow. Hodges are gone over the top this morning:
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/921660216890068992
from your edited post: the dislike may not be all justified, but the reality is, is that brand image - what people associate a party with as opposed to policy - also contributes to who they decide to vote for. In that sense with social media, how both parties’ supporters conduct themselves is probably going to be judged as part of that brand image. I’m sure some aren’t voting Labour because they see their supporters as SJWs or something like that, for example.0 -
I suppose I should have rephrased that as 'the British Empire essentially stood alone.' However while there were a handful of Canadian and Australian and Kiwi pilots in the Battle of Britain there weren't many if any from India, Africa, the Middle East etc and had the Nazis won the Battle of Britain having the Empire would not have been much use in protecting us from the subsequent Nazi invasion.foxinsoxuk said:
Not quite! In 1940 we had Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, all self governing, as allies. As well as these we had the Colonies or Protectorates of India, Malaya, Africa, West Indies and Middle East. Hardly alone, we had a quarter of the world in terms of landmass and population on our side.HYUFD said:
The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbour in 1941 so if it was still fighting Japan under a different President it would likely have still fought the Nazis. Let us not forget the UK fought the Battle of Britain essentially alone in 1940 apart from some Poles, Czechs and free French in exiledavid_herdson said:
As noted elsewhere, far from being the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed, the absence of it in 1940 may well have been the saviour of freedom, at least in Europe.TheScreamingEagles said:
All because vindictive and loser Republicans considered FDR serving sixteen years, the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed.david_herdson said:
That may be true but theMetatron said:If Michele Obama stood she surely would be the one to beat and given that (surprisingly) very few people chose to stand against Hilary Clinton who would stand against Michele except a far left candidate.
Note at the last 2 Democratic Conventions Michele gave give or take Bill Clinton the best received speech
The 22nd Amendment is a very stupid thing.
I mean really, is that the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed?
A less capable and less confident president than FDR - and whoever replaced him would have been both - might easily have condemned Britain to having to seek t of Japan, the US could easily have slipped back into isolationism mixed with an even more rabid domestic Commuphobia and social conservatism.0 -
If the US had stayed out of the War, then I think there would have been stalemate between Germany and the British Empire. I think subsequent history would have been somewhat like the Hundred Years War, with periods of fighting (principally in the Middle East) combined with long truces.foxinsoxuk said:
Not quite! In 1940 we had Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, all self governing, as allies. As well as these we had the Colonies or Protectorates of India, Malaya, Africa, West Indies and Middle East. Hardly alone, we had a quarter of the world in terms of landmass and population on our side.HYUFD said:
The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbour in 1941 so if it was still fighting Japan under a different President it would likely have still fought the Nazis. Let us not forget the UK fought the Battle of Britain essentially alone in 1940 apart from some Poles, Czechs and free French in exiledavid_herdson said:
As noted elsewhere, far from being the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed, the absence of it in 1940 may well have been the saviour of freedom, at least in Europe.TheScreamingEagles said:
All because vindictive and loser Republicans considered FDR serving sixteen years, the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed.david_herdson said:
That may be true but theMetatron said:If Michele Obama stood she surely would be the one to beat and given that (surprisingly) very few people chose to stand against Hilary Clinton who would stand against Michele except a far left candidate.
Note at the last 2 Democratic Conventions Michele gave give or take Bill Clinton the best received speech
The 22nd Amendment is a very stupid thing.
I mean really, is that the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed?
A less capable and less confident president than FDR - and whoever replaced him would have been both - might easily have condemned Britain to having to seek terms as the money, and hence the equipment, ran out. Even had that not been the case, it might have been the Red Army rather than the Allies that kicked the Nazis out of Germany, France, the low countries and Italy. France and Italy might have got away with a Yugoslav outcome given the size of the native Communist parties; the rest would have had direct rule. Germany would have been deindustrialised and the mass killings would have run into millions. With no European democracies outside the British Isles, Nato would likely not have existed and after the defeat of Japan, the US could easily have slipped back into isolationism mixed with an even more rabid domestic Commuphobia and social conservatism.0 -
F1: I think third practice is between 5-6pm, so the pre-qualifying ramble will be in the evening.0
-
The Soviet Union might have had something to say about that.Sean_F said:If the US had stayed out of the War, then I think there would have been stalemate between Germany and the British Empire. I think subsequent history would have been somewhat like the Hundred Years War, with periods of fighting (principally in the Middle East) combined with long truces.
0 -
Yep. He called EdM spot on. One of the few to do so. Since then not so hot.The_Apocalypse said:
Since then he’s been wrong on a number of things: Corbyn becoming Labour leader, Brexit, Trump’s election, the last GE.BannedInParis said:
Just like he was in 2010-2015.dixiedean said:
Hodges is getting tedious. His one redeeming feature is that he is almost always wrong.rottenborough said:Wow. Hodges are gone over the top this morning:
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/921660216890068992
Oh.
Wait.0 -
The Soviet Union would no doubt have been looking to push into the Middle East and Eastern Europe.Jonathan said:
The Soviet Union might have had something to say about that.Sean_F said:If the US had stayed out of the War, then I think there would have been stalemate between Germany and the British Empire. I think subsequent history would have been somewhat like the Hundred Years War, with periods of fighting (principally in the Middle East) combined with long truces.
0 -
Germany invaded the USSR before it declared war on the USA.Sean_F said:
The Soviet Union would no doubt have been looking to push into the Middle East and Eastern Europe.Jonathan said:
The Soviet Union might have had something to say about that.Sean_F said:If the US had stayed out of the War, then I think there would have been stalemate between Germany and the British Empire. I think subsequent history would have been somewhat like the Hundred Years War, with periods of fighting (principally in the Middle East) combined with long truces.
0 -
Just drop the shit meme and walk away from it, that's all I'm asking for.dixiedean said:
Yep. He called EdM spot on. One of the few to do so. Since then not so hot.The_Apocalypse said:
Since then he’s been wrong on a number of things: Corbyn becoming Labour leader, Brexit, Trump’s election, the last GE.BannedInParis said:
Just like he was in 2010-2015.dixiedean said:
Hodges is getting tedious. His one redeeming feature is that he is almost always wrong.rottenborough said:Wow. Hodges are gone over the top this morning:
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/921660216890068992
Oh.
Wait.0 -
Morning sexy people
Everyone in a better mood today?
0 -
Yes, I think the correlation of pleasantness and political belief is extremely weak. The usual test of civilised behaviour is a limitation to the level of self-righteousness: a fascist who concedes he might well be wrong can be nicer company than a liberal who thinks that anyone who disagrees is an idiot.Sean_F said:
While I agree with your last paragraph, I'm not at all convinced that the behaviour of Conservative supporters in general is worse than the behaviour of Labour supporters.0 -
Yes, P3 is 5-6 UK time. Qualifying, for reasons I don’t understand, is not 8-9 as one would expect but 10-11 tonight - which is a real bugger when you’re three hours ahead of those times!Morris_Dancer said:F1: I think third practice is between 5-6pm, so the pre-qualifying ramble will be in the evening.
0 -
Because of the Empire there were few pilots from those parts of the world.HYUFD said:
I suppose I should have rephrased that as 'the British Empire essentially stood alone.' However while there were a handful of Canadian and Australian and Kiwi pilots in the Battle of Britain there weren't many if any from India, Africa, the Middle East etc and had the Nazis won the Battle of Britain having the Empire would not have been much use in protecting us from the subsequent Nazi invasion.foxinsoxuk said:
Not quite! In 1940 we had Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, all self governing, as allies. As well as these we had the Colonies or Protectorates of India, Malaya, Africa, West Indies and Middle East. Hardly alone, we had a quarter of the world in terms of landmass and population on our side.HYUFD said:
The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbour in 1941 so if it was still fighting Japan under a different President it would likely have still fought the Nazis. Let us not forget the UK fought the Battle of Britain essentially alone in 1940 apart from some Poles, Czechs and free French in exiledavid_herdson said:
As noted elsewhere, far from being the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed, the absence of it in 1940 may well have been the saviour of freedom, at least in Europe.TheScreamingEagles said:
All because vindictive and loser Republicans considered FDR serving sixteen years, the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed.david_herdson said:
That may be true but theMetatron said:If Michele Obama stood she surely would be the one to beat and given that (surprisingly) very few people chose to stand against Hilary Clinton who would stand against Michele except a far left candidate.
Note at the last 2 Democratic Conventions Michele gave give or take Bill Clinton the best received speech
The 22nd Amendment is a very stupid thing.
I mean really, is that the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed?
A less capable and less confident president than FDR - and whoever replaced him would have been both - might easily have condemned Britain to having to seek t of Japan, the US could easily have slipped back into isolationism mixed with an even more rabid domestic Commuphobia and social conservatism.
Nearly 20% of the pilots that were involved in the Battle of Britain were non Brits
IIRC all the RAF qualified pilots from Indian flew in the Battle of Britain
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jan/15/raf-race-diversity-pilot-exhibition
IIRC 1 in 5 of the pilots in the Battle of Britain were non Brits.0 -
I wasn’t thinking in terms of whether someone’s attitude to another individual that they’re talking to is nice or not. I was thinking much more about the values or attitudes party members/voters exhibit on social media: thus the reference to SJWs as an example on the Left end of things, as that’s about values more than anything else.NickPalmer said:
Yes, I think the correlation of pleasantness and political belief is extremely weak. The usual test of civilised behaviour is a limitation to the level of self-righteousness: a fascist who concedes he might well be wrong can be nicer company than a liberal who thinks that anyone who disagrees is an idiot.Sean_F said:
While I agree with your last paragraph, I'm not at all convinced that the behaviour of Conservative supporters in general is worse than the behaviour of Labour supporters.0 -
Mr. Sandpit, yeah, it is an odd time. I speculated the other day it might be to avoid clashing with some sporting event in the US, otherwise it seems inexplicable.
The race is on at a more sensible 7pm, at least.0 -
Lights out at 8pm BSTMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, yeah, it is an odd time. I speculated the other day it might be to avoid clashing with some sporting event in the US, otherwise it seems inexplicable.
The race is on at a more sensible 7pm, at least.0 -
If it will make you happy. Still find him tedious.BannedInParis said:
Just drop the shit meme and walk away from it, that's all I'm asking for.dixiedean said:
Yep. He called EdM spot on. One of the few to do so. Since then not so hot.The_Apocalypse said:
Since then he’s been wrong on a number of things: Corbyn becoming Labour leader, Brexit, Trump’s election, the last GE.BannedInParis said:
Just like he was in 2010-2015.dixiedean said:
Hodges is getting tedious. His one redeeming feature is that he is almost always wrong.rottenborough said:Wow. Hodges are gone over the top this morning:
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/921660216890068992
Oh.
Wait.0 -
Although I imagine that really unpleasant, even criminal, behaviour is more common in extreme right and left organisations than it is in the mainstream.NickPalmer said:
Yes, I think the correlation of pleasantness and political belief is extremely weak. The usual test of civilised behaviour is a limitation to the level of self-righteousness: a fascist who concedes he might well be wrong can be nicer company than a liberal who thinks that anyone who disagrees is an idiot.Sean_F said:
While I agree with your last paragraph, I'm not at all convinced that the behaviour of Conservative supporters in general is worse than the behaviour of Labour supporters.0 -
Mr. Eagles, just checked and it seems you're correct. I wonder if the time changed (on the BBC website), or I misread it many times...
Edited extra bit: thanks
0 -
Did you watch that NRA ad? It was like something from RoboCop.rottenborough said:Wow. Hodges are gone over the top this morning:
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/9216602168900689920 -
I'm always right, I checked earlier on this week, to see if I had time to leave home after the Spurs v Liverpool match that finishes around 6pm and get to Manchester in time for the start of the race.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Eagles, just checked and it seems you're correct. I wonder if the time changed (on the BBC website), or I misread it many times...
0 -
Hitler would have still declared war on the US but I'm far from confident that any other president would have pursued Germany First. Also, FDR's leadership in the pre-Pearl era, where he step by step brought the US to a point where it was more psychologically and physically ready for war was outstanding. Given the constraints of Congress, it's almost certain that it couldn't have been done faster. Most presidents would surely have gone more slowly, if at all.HYUFD said:
The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbour in 1941 so if it was still fighting Japan under a different President it would likely have still fought the Nazis. Let us not forget the UK fought the Battle of Britain essentially alone in 1940 apart from some Poles, Czechs and free French in exiledavid_herdson said:
As noted elsewhere, far from being the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed, the absence of it in 1940 may well have been the saviour of freedom, at least in Europe.TheScreamingEagles said:
All because vindictive and loser Republicans considered FDR serving sixteen years, the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed.
I mean really, is that the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed?
A less capable and less confident president than FDR - and whoever replaced him would have been both - might easily have condemned Britain to having to seek terms as the money, and hence the equipment, ran out. Even had that not been the case, it might have been the Red Army rather than the Allies that kicked the Nazis out of Germany, France, the low countries and Italy. France and Italy might have got away with a Yugoslav outcome given the size of the native Communist parties; the rest would have had direct rule. Germany would have been deindustrialised and the mass killings would have run into millions. With no European democracies outside the British Isles, Nato would likely not have existed and after the defeat of Japan, the US could easily have slipped back into isolationism mixed with an even more rabid domestic Commuphobia and social conservatism.
Yes, Britain (and the empire) fought on alone through not just the Battle of Britain but halfway through 1941. Would that have been possible with a lesser level of US material and financial support? Perhaps, but it would have been far harder. In the worst case, it simply wouldn't in a meaningful sense. If the US had put Japan first, with the exception of air force raids from Britain, D-Day may well not have taken place and Stalin could have reached not just Berlin but Brussels, Paris and Bordeaux.0 -
Correct.TheScreamingEagles said:
Lights out at 8pm BSTMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, yeah, it is an odd time. I speculated the other day it might be to avoid clashing with some sporting event in the US, otherwise it seems inexplicable.
The race is on at a more sensible 7pm, at least.0 -
Also, I don’t think the NRA are alt-right. They’ve been associated with the GOP now for a good while.0
-
No, but the Royal Navy would have been. There've been a lot of studies done about Sealion. The general consensus is that it was only winnable for Germany if it devoted the greater part of its military power to it, not just in deployment but in terms of the sort of equipment ordered and built, and if the invasion was scheduled for the Spring of 1941. That, in turn, would have delayed Barbarossa - the real purpose of the war from Hitler's point - until at least 1942, by which time the Red Army would have recovered further still from the Purge.HYUFD said:
I suppose I should have rephrased that as 'the British Empire essentially stood alone.' However while there were a handful of Canadian and Australian and Kiwi pilots in the Battle of Britain there weren't many if any from India, Africa, the Middle East etc and had the Nazis won the Battle of Britain having the Empire would not have been much use in protecting us from the subsequent Nazi invasion.foxinsoxuk said:
Not quite! In 1940 we had Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, all self governing, as allies. As well as these we had the Colonies or Protectorates of India, Malaya, Africa, West Indies and Middle East. Hardly alone, we had a quarter of the world in terms of landmass and population on our side.HYUFD said:
The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbour in 1941 so if it was still fighting Japan under a different President it would likely have still fought the Nazis. Let us not forget the UK fought the Battle of Britain essentially alone in 1940 apart from some Poles, Czechs and free French in exiledavid_herdson said:
As noted elsewhere, far from being the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed, the absence of it in 1940 may well have been the saviour of freedom, at least in Europe.TheScreamingEagles said:
All because vindictive and loser Republicans considered FDR serving sixteen years, the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed.david_herdson said:
That may be true but the
The 22nd Amendment is a very stupid thing.
I mean really, is that the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed?
A less capable and less confident president than FDR - and whoever replaced him would have been both - might easily have condemned Britain to having to seek t of Japan, the US could easily have slipped back into isolationism mixed with an even more rabid domestic Commuphobia and social conservatism.
Britain was in a reasonable state to withstand an invasion. Where it was vulnerable in 1940/1 was firstly in being able to carry on the fight, and secondly, in the Atlantic supply chain.0 -
I have heard arguments that the reason so many people died at Las Vegas is because the concert-goers were unarmed and couldn't shoot back at the gunman.The_Apocalypse said:Also, I don’t think the NRA are alt-right. They’ve been associated with the GOP now for a good while.
0 -
Yeh, I watched. Damn scary stuff.Alistair said:
Did you watch that NRA ad? It was like something from RoboCop.rottenborough said:Wow. Hodges are gone over the top this morning:
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/9216602168900689920 -
I’m not surprised that some have used that argument.Sean_F said:
I have heard arguments that the reason so many people died at Las Vegas is because the concert-goers were unarmed and couldn't shoot back at the gunman.The_Apocalypse said:Also, I don’t think the NRA are alt-right. They’ve been associated with the GOP now for a good while.
I’ve seen it used before in different situations. Once I came across the argument that things would have been different in the London terror attack if people here had had guns on them.0 -
They described the suspect as a man in his 40s who fled on a black bicycle.
The suspect was said to be unshaven, with grey trousers and a green tracksuit top and carrying a backpack and sleeping mat
Munich knife attack: Police hunt man who injured five
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41705587
They seem to be missing a rather pertinent bit of info0 -
I felt sorry for the guard who was stabbed outside the Palace of Westminster. Generally I think it's good that our police mostly don't carry guns. But I think at location like that they should all have guns.The_Apocalypse said:
I’m not surprised that some have used that argument.Sean_F said:
I have heard arguments that the reason so many people died at Las Vegas is because the concert-goers were unarmed and couldn't shoot back at the gunman.The_Apocalypse said:Also, I don’t think the NRA are alt-right. They’ve been associated with the GOP now for a good while.
I’ve seen it used before in different situations. Once I came across the argument that things would have been different in the London terror attack if people here had had guns on them.0 -
It is always worth remembering that someone having a different view about what is a priority or, indeed, about how to achieve the same end does not make them evil or beyond the pale. The belief amongst some there can only be one legitimate or “right” opinion on anything is very tiresome and unhealthy.NickPalmer said:
Yes, I think the correlation of pleasantness and political belief is extremely weak. The usual test of civilised behaviour is a limitation to the level of self-righteousness: a fascist who concedes he might well be wrong can be nicer company than a liberal who thinks that anyone who disagrees is an idiot.Sean_F said:
While I agree with your last paragraph, I'm not at all convinced that the behaviour of Conservative supporters in general is worse than the behaviour of Labour supporters.
Oh - and hello to a fellow Casablanca fan!0 -
It is very moving to see the names of the lost pilots in the Battle of Britain at the RaF museum in Colindale.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the Empire there were few pilots from those parts of the world.HYUFD said:
I suppose I should have rephrased that as 'the British Empire essentially stood alone.' However while there were a handful of Canadian and Australian and Kiwi pilots in the Battle of Britain there weren't many if any from India, Africa, the Middle East etc and had the Nazis won the Battle of Britain having the Empire would not have been much use in protecting us from the subsequent Nazi invasion.foxinsoxuk said:
Not quite! In 1940 we had Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, all self governing, as allies. As well as these we had the Colonies or Protectorates of India, Malaya, Africa, West Indies and Middle East. Hardly alone, we had a quarter of the world in terms of landmass and population on our side.HYUFD said:
The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbour in 1941 so if it was still fighting Japan under a different President it would likely have still fought the Nazis. Let us not forget the UK fought the Battle of Britain essentially alone in 1940 apart from some Poles, Czechs and free French in exiledavid_herdson said:
As noted elsewhere, far from being the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed, the absence of it in 1940 may well have been the saviour of freedom, at least in Europe.TheScreamingEagles said:
A less capable and less confident president than FDR - and whoever replaced him would have been both - might easily have condemned Britain to having to seek t of Japan, the US could easily have slipped back into isolationism mixed with an even more rabid domestic Commuphobia and social conservatism.
Nearly 20% of the pilots that were involved in the Battle of Britain were non Brits
IIRC all the RAF qualified pilots from Indian flew in the Battle of Britain
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jan/15/raf-race-diversity-pilot-exhibition
IIRC 1 in 5 of the pilots in the Battle of Britain were non Brits.0 -
Very interesting from Matthew Goodwin:
"As long as progressives fail to address the values gap, populists will have significant influence on Europe’s political landscape."
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/opinion/european-populism-is-here-to-stay.html?referer=https://www.google.me/0 -
@david_herdson
I frequently criticise PB for its mutation into www.BrexiteersWanking.com and the neverending Brexit discussion, but on some days it really earns its crust. This was one of them. Thank you David, excellent article.0 -
The mind boggles. Imagine the casualties if hundreds of people had been firing into a hotel.The_Apocalypse said:
I’m not surprised that some have used that argument.Sean_F said:
I have heard arguments that the reason so many people died at Las Vegas is because the concert-goers were unarmed and couldn't shoot back at the gunman.The_Apocalypse said:Also, I don’t think the NRA are alt-right. They’ve been associated with the GOP now for a good while.
m.0 -
Mr. Code, please. This is a civilised website, there's no need for naughty words.
Instead we enjoy the sophisticated discourses revolving around the Second Punic War, and differential front end grip.0 -
Does it still work when you control for rural/urban? Isn't that likely to be a root driver for both?foxinsoxuk said:
Some very interesting maps here:Jonathan said:
Some of the stuff coming out of the NRA is quite full on.rottenborough said:Wow. Hodges are gone over the top this morning:
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/921660216890068992
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/gun-ownership-partisan-divide.html
Being a gun owning household (or not) was a stronger predictor of voting Republican than anything else, including race, religiosity or education. Gun ownership there is very much a marker of other political values.
(I am, of course, referring to legal gun ownership!)0 -
The RAF Museum is great. It's so much better than the Imperial War Museum, which is now semi-pacifist.Cyclefree said:
It is very moving to see the names of the lost pilots in the Battle of Britain at the RaF museum in Colindale.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the Empire there were few pilots from those parts of the world.HYUFD said:
I suppose I should have rephrased that as 'the British Empire essentially stood alone.' However while there were a handful of Canadian and Australian and Kiwi pilots in the Battle of Britain there weren't many if any from India, Africa, the Middle East etc and had the Nazis won the Battle of Britain having the Empire would not have been much use in protecting us from the subsequent Nazi invasion.foxinsoxuk said:
Not quite! In 1940 we had Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, all self governing, as allies. As well as these we had the Colonies or Protectorates of India, Malaya, Africa, West Indies and Middle East. Hardly alone, we had a quarter of the world in terms of landmass and population on our side.HYUFD said:
The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbour in 1941 so if it was still fighting Japan under a different President it would likely have still fought the Nazis. Let us not forget the UK fought the Battle of Britain essentially alone in 1940 apart from some Poles, Czechs and free French in exiledavid_herdson said:
As noted elsewhere, far from being the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed, the absence of it in 1940 may well have been the saviour of freedom, at least in Europe.TheScreamingEagles said:
A less capable and less confident president than FDR - and whoever replaced him would have been both - might easily have condemned Britain to having to seek t of Japan, the US could easily have slipped back into isolationism mixed with an even more rabid domestic Commuphobia and social conservatism.
Nearly 20% of the pilots that were involved in the Battle of Britain were non Brits
IIRC all the RAF qualified pilots from Indian flew in the Battle of Britain
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jan/15/raf-race-diversity-pilot-exhibition
IIRC 1 in 5 of the pilots in the Battle of Britain were non Brits.0 -
Mr. F, what?
I haven't been to the Imperial War Museum, so could you elaborate upon your comment?0 -
-
remember they couldnt go on about brexit unless you gave them a daily helping handviewcode said:@david_herdson
I frequently criticise PB for its mutation into www.BrexiteersWanking.com and the neverending Brexit discussion, but on some days it really earns its crust. This was one of them. Thank you David, excellent article.
0 -
Presumably if Catalonia declares UDI then they won't recognise the authority of the Spanish Courts...calum said:0 -
the IW has gone backwardsSean_F said:
The RAF Museum is great. It's so much better than the Imperial War Museum, which is now semi-pacifist.Cyclefree said:
It is very moving to see the names of the lost pilots in the Battle of Britain at the RaF museum in Colindale.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the Empire there were few pilots from those parts of the world.HYUFD said:
I suppose I should have rephrased that as 'the British Empire essentially stood alone.' However while there were a handful of Canadian and Australian and Kiwi pilots in the Battle of Britain there weren't many if any from India, Africa, the Middle East etc and had the Nazis won the Battle of Britain having the Empire would not have been much use in protecting us from the subsequent Nazi invasion.foxinsoxuk said:
Not quite! In 1940 we had Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, all self governing, as allies. As well as these we had the Colonies or Protectorates of India, Malaya, Africa, West Indies and Middle East. Hardly alone, we had a quarter of the world in terms of landmass and population on our side.HYUFD said:
The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbour in 1941 so if it was still fighting Japan under a different President it would likely have still fought the Nazis. Let us not forget the UK fought the Battle of Britain essentially alone in 1940 apart from some Poles, Czechs and free French in exiledavid_herdson said:
As noted elsewhere, far from being the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed, the absence of it in 1940 may well have been the saviour of freedom, at least in Europe.TheScreamingEagles said:
A less capable and less confident president than FDR - and whoever replaced him would have been both - might easily have condemned Britain to having to seek t of Japan, the US could easily have slipped back into isolationism mixed with an even more rabid domestic Commuphobia and social conservatism.
Nearly 20% of the pilots that were involved in the Battle of Britain were non Brits
IIRC all the RAF qualified pilots from Indian flew in the Battle of Britain
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jan/15/raf-race-diversity-pilot-exhibition
IIRC 1 in 5 of the pilots in the Battle of Britain were non Brits.
it used to be worth a visit, now its just CGI in central London
you might as well stay at home and save the tube fare0 -
One of things that I’m really grateful for is that in this country there is no ‘right to bare arms’. Also, that NRA ad was just ridiculous.Sean_F said:
The mind boggles. Imagine the casualties if hundreds of people had been firing into a hotel.The_Apocalypse said:
I’m not surprised that some have used that argument.Sean_F said:
I have heard arguments that the reason so many people died at Las Vegas is because the concert-goers were unarmed and couldn't shoot back at the gunman.The_Apocalypse said:Also, I don’t think the NRA are alt-right. They’ve been associated with the GOP now for a good while.
m.0 -
there is no ‘right to bare arms’.The_Apocalypse said:
One of things that I’m really grateful for is that in this country there is no ‘right to bare arms’. Also, that NRA ad was just ridiculous.Sean_F said:
The mind boggles. Imagine the casualties if hundreds of people had been firing into a hotel.The_Apocalypse said:
I’m not surprised that some have used that argument.Sean_F said:
I have heard arguments that the reason so many people died at Las Vegas is because the concert-goers were unarmed and couldn't shoot back at the gunman.The_Apocalypse said:Also, I don’t think the NRA are alt-right. They’ve been associated with the GOP now for a good while.
m.
have you ever been to Newcastle on a Saturday night ? Loads of them0 -
There's a lot of space now given over to CND and the Stop the War coalition.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. F, what?
I haven't been to the Imperial War Museum, so could you elaborate upon your comment?0 -
Surely there are some thing on which there can only be a right opinion. Say murder, rape and marmite.Cyclefree said:The belief amongst some there can only be one legitimate or “right” opinion on anything is very tiresome and unhealthy.
Oh - and hello to a fellow Casablanca fan!
0 -
Mr. F, that's bloody ridiculous.
Ms. Apocalypse, bear* arms. In the Elizabethan era, bare arms were seen as scandalous (exposed cleavage was fine).0 -
LOL.Alanbrooke said:
there is no ‘right to bare arms’.The_Apocalypse said:
One of things that I’m really grateful for is that in this country there is no ‘right to bare arms’. Also, that NRA ad was just ridiculous.Sean_F said:
The mind boggles. Imagine the casualties if hundreds of people had been firing into a hotel.The_Apocalypse said:
I’m not surprised that some have used that argument.Sean_F said:
I have heard arguments that the reason so many people died at Las Vegas is because the concert-goers were unarmed and couldn't shoot back at the gunman.The_Apocalypse said:Also, I don’t think the NRA are alt-right. They’ve been associated with the GOP now for a good while.
m.
have you ever been to Newcastle on a Saturday night ? Loads of them
I’ve never been to Newcastle.
I have heard that people let their hair down much more down there when they go clubbing than in, say, London.0 -
Surely that’s precisely because they have the right to bare arms? Also look for the bare legs, and lots of bare midriffs too.Alanbrooke said:
there is no ‘right to bare arms’.The_Apocalypse said:
One of things that I’m really grateful for is that in this country there is no ‘right to bare arms’. Also, that NRA ad was just ridiculous.Sean_F said:
The mind boggles. Imagine the casualties if hundreds of people had been firing into a hotel.The_Apocalypse said:
I’m not surprised that some have used that argument.Sean_F said:
I have heard arguments that the reason so many people died at Las Vegas is because the concert-goers were unarmed and couldn't shoot back at the gunman.The_Apocalypse said:Also, I don’t think the NRA are alt-right. They’ve been associated with the GOP now for a good while.
m.
have you ever been to Newcastle on a Saturday night ? Loads of them0 -
...thank you for proving my point.Alanbrooke said:
remember they couldnt go on about brexit unless you gave them a daily helping handviewcode said:@david_herdson
I frequently criticise PB for its mutation into www.BrexiteersWanking.com and the neverending Brexit discussion, but on some days it really earns its crust. This was one of them. Thank you David, excellent article.0 -
That's the trouble with being X. Everyone is always plotting against you.kle4 said:
No more than have a bad image of non-Tories, since last I checked the main two parties are about as popular as one another, give or take a few percent. And bad images of parties are rarely deserving (at least not to the extent such an image exists), just ask the LDs. People take the extreme views, then extrapolate that to everyone who might support that party, then say 'X is why I hate Y', even if most Y are not like that, making the justification of X pretty much just a covering excuse for dislike.The_Apocalypse said:
Reading Dan Hodges’ twitter feed is like reading PB whenever there’s racism or sexism scandal and understanding why so many have a bad image of Tories.dixiedean said:
Hodges is getting tedious. His one redeeming feature is that he is almost always wrong.rottenborough said:Wow. Hodges are gone over the top this morning:
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/9216602168900689920 -
Ah, so it really is ‘bear’ arms. Thanks.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. F, that's bloody ridiculous.
Ms. Apocalypse, bear* arms. In the Elizabethan era, bare arms were seen as scandalous (exposed cleavage was fine).
In the Victorian era, apparently showing ankles was considered scandalous!
0 -
I thought 'front end grip' was what Viewcode was alluding to!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Code, please. This is a civilised website, there's no need for naughty words.
Instead we enjoy the sophisticated discourses revolving around the Second Punic War, and differential front end grip.0 -
Cheers. It's a pleasure to write stuff that's appreciated and, hopefully, useful.viewcode said:@david_herdson
I frequently criticise PB for its mutation into www.BrexiteersWanking.com and the neverending Brexit discussion, but on some days it really earns its crust. This was one of them. Thank you David, excellent article.0 -
Canny place, Ny’cassel.The_Apocalypse said:
LOL.Alanbrooke said:
there is no ‘right to bare arms’.The_Apocalypse said:
One of things that I’m really grateful for is that in this country there is no ‘right to bare arms’. Also, that NRA ad was just ridiculous.Sean_F said:
The mind boggles. Imagine the casualties if hundreds of people had been firing into a hotel.The_Apocalypse said:
I’m not surprised that some have used that argument.Sean_F said:
I have heard arguments that the reason so many people died at Las Vegas is because the concert-goers were unarmed and couldn't shoot back at the gunman.The_Apocalypse said:Also, I don’t think the NRA are alt-right. They’ve been associated with the GOP now for a good while.
m.
have you ever been to Newcastle on a Saturday night ? Loads of them
I’ve never been to Newcastle.
I have heard that people let their hair down much more down there when they go clubbing than in, say, London.0 -
I doubt whether David Miliband will be the next Labour leader. The reason why perhaps he does so well on betting markets is that Labour members are going to be so devastated by the scale of the defeat that Corbyn will inflict upon Labour at 10pm on the night of the next election that it is believed that Labour will turn back to Blairism. Which it wont and shouldnt. what it will need to do after the defeat of 2022 will be to turn back to the mainstream Labour free of the ideological extremes of Blairism and the neo Marxism of the Corbynistas.0
-
You're welcome.david_herdson said:
Cheers. It's a pleasure to write stuff that's appreciated and, hopefully, useful.viewcode said:@david_herdson
I frequently criticise PB for its mutation into www.BrexiteersWanking.com and the neverending Brexit discussion, but on some days it really earns its crust. This was one of them. Thank you David, excellent article.0 -
The Memorial above Dover is quie moving, too.Sean_F said:
The RAF Museum is great. It's so much better than the Imperial War Museum, which is now semi-pacifist.Cyclefree said:
It is very moving to see the names of the lost pilots in the Battle of Britain at the RaF museum in Colindale.TheScreamingEagles said:
Because of the Empire there were few pilots from those parts of the world.HYUFD said:
I suppose I should have rephrased that as 'the British Empire essentially stood alone.' However while there were a handful of Canadian and Australian and Kiwi pilots in the Battle of Britain there weren't many if any from India, Africa, the Middle East etc and had the Nazis won the Battle of Britain having the Empire would not have been much use in protecting us from the subsequent Nazi invasion.foxinsoxuk said:
Not quite! In 1940 we had Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, all self governing, as allies. As well as these we had the Colonies or Protectorates of India, Malaya, Africa, West Indies and Middle East. Hardly alone, we had a quarter of the world in terms of landmass and population on our side.HYUFD said:
The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbour in 1941 so if it was still fighting Japan under a different President it would likely have still fought the Nazis. Let us not forget the UK fought the Battle of Britain essentially alone in 1940 apart from some Poles, Czechs and free French in exiledavid_herdson said:
As noted elsewhere, far from being the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed, the absence of it in 1940 may well have been the saviour of freedom, at least in Europe.TheScreamingEagles said:
A less capable and less confident president than FDR - and whoever replaced him would have been both - might easily have condemned Britain to having to seek t of Japan, the US could easily have slipped back into isolationism mixed with an even more rabid domestic Commuphobia and social conservatism.
Nearly 20% of the pilots that were involved in the Battle of Britain were non Brits
IIRC all the RAF qualified pilots from Indian flew in the Battle of Britain
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jan/15/raf-race-diversity-pilot-exhibition
IIRC 1 in 5 of the pilots in the Battle of Britain were non Brits.0 -
Huh? I believe that t-shirts are legal?The_Apocalypse said:
One of things that I’m really grateful for is that in this country there is no ‘right to bare arms’. Also, that NRA ad was just ridiculous.Sean_F said:
The mind boggles. Imagine the casualties if hundreds of people had been firing into a hotel.The_Apocalypse said:
I’m not surprised that some have used that argument.Sean_F said:
I have heard arguments that the reason so many people died at Las Vegas is because the concert-goers were unarmed and couldn't shoot back at the gunman.The_Apocalypse said:Also, I don’t think the NRA are alt-right. They’ve been associated with the GOP now for a good while.
m.0 -
Much of that, to be fair, could have written in late May this year. Delete the words ‘of 2022” and you’re there.stevef said:I doubt whether David Miliband will be the next Labour leader. The reason why perhaps he does so well on betting markets is that Labour members are going to be so devastated by the scale of the defeat that Corbyn will inflict upon Labour at 10pm on the night of the next election that it is believed that Labour will turn back to Blairism. Which it wont and shouldnt. what it will need to do after the defeat of 2022 will be to turn back to the mainstream Labour free of the ideological extremes of Blairism and the neo Marxism of the Corbynistas.
0 -
Not sure how you can so certain of the result of next GE this far out and with the Tories owning Brexit.stevef said:I doubt whether David Miliband will be the next Labour leader. The reason why perhaps he does so well on betting markets is that Labour members are going to be so devastated by the scale of the defeat that Corbyn will inflict upon Labour at 10pm on the night of the next election that it is believed that Labour will turn back to Blairism. Which it wont and shouldnt. what it will need to do after the defeat of 2022 will be to turn back to the mainstream Labour free of the ideological extremes of Blairism and the neo Marxism of the Corbynistas.
0 -
By the way, one snippet I had to cut from the lead article was that the two favourites to win the 2020 presidential race are both Republicans. Mike Pence is shorter odds (10/1) than any Democrat (12/1, Warren).0
-
And yet there seems to be a certainty in the other direction with Corbynistas declaring Corbyn a prime minister in waiting. As for Brexit, it remains what most people want.rottenborough said:
Not sure how you can so certain of the result of next GE this far out and with the Tories owning Brexit.stevef said:I doubt whether David Miliband will be the next Labour leader. The reason why perhaps he does so well on betting markets is that Labour members are going to be so devastated by the scale of the defeat that Corbyn will inflict upon Labour at 10pm on the night of the next election that it is believed that Labour will turn back to Blairism. Which it wont and shouldnt. what it will need to do after the defeat of 2022 will be to turn back to the mainstream Labour free of the ideological extremes of Blairism and the neo Marxism of the Corbynistas.
0 -
Corbyn lost-winning about the same number of seats in Gordon Brown in 2010.OldKingCole said:
Much of that, to be fair, could have written in late May this year. Delete the words ‘of 2022” and you’re there.stevef said:I doubt whether David Miliband will be the next Labour leader. The reason why perhaps he does so well on betting markets is that Labour members are going to be so devastated by the scale of the defeat that Corbyn will inflict upon Labour at 10pm on the night of the next election that it is believed that Labour will turn back to Blairism. Which it wont and shouldnt. what it will need to do after the defeat of 2022 will be to turn back to the mainstream Labour free of the ideological extremes of Blairism and the neo Marxism of the Corbynistas.
0 -
"SJW" is a strange pejorative. If social justice isn't worth fighting for then what is?The_Apocalypse said:I’m sure some aren’t voting Labour because they see their supporters as SJWs or something like that, for example.
0 -
True. Bit like Feb 1974 or 2010. No-one really won; but lots of people could take something from it.stevef said:
Corbyn lost-winning about the same number of seats in Gordon Brown in 2010.OldKingCole said:
Much of that, to be fair, could have written in late May this year. Delete the words ‘of 2022” and you’re there.stevef said:I doubt whether David Miliband will be the next Labour leader. The reason why perhaps he does so well on betting markets is that Labour members are going to be so devastated by the scale of the defeat that Corbyn will inflict upon Labour at 10pm on the night of the next election that it is believed that Labour will turn back to Blairism. Which it wont and shouldnt. what it will need to do after the defeat of 2022 will be to turn back to the mainstream Labour free of the ideological extremes of Blairism and the neo Marxism of the Corbynistas.
My point is that Labour seems to be on an upward trajectory, and the Tories are not.
However Scotland, as ever, is different.0 -
Even though Ed Miliband was not much of a politician, we should remember he did get a swing to Labour in England but that was not enough in the face of the near wipe-out by the SNP in Scotland, and the disappearance of the LibDems. The rest is history: Corbyn became leader and Ed was reduced to writing policies for Theresa May.dixiedean said:
Yep. He called EdM spot on. One of the few to do so. Since then not so hot.The_Apocalypse said:
Since then he’s been wrong on a number of things: Corbyn becoming Labour leader, Brexit, Trump’s election, the last GE.BannedInParis said:
Just like he was in 2010-2015.dixiedean said:
Hodges is getting tedious. His one redeeming feature is that he is almost always wrong.rottenborough said:Wow. Hodges are gone over the top this morning:
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/921660216890068992
Oh.
Wait.0 -
Yes and no. He lost in absolute terms, certainly. Labour was not, however, "devastated by the scale of the defeat that Corbyn inflict[ed] upon [it]". On the contrary, in relative terms, it did quite well: gaining seats, votes and vote share, and denying the Tories the majority they previously enjoyed.stevef said:
Corbyn lost-winning about the same number of seats in Gordon Brown in 2010.OldKingCole said:
Much of that, to be fair, could have written in late May this year. Delete the words ‘of 2022” and you’re there.stevef said:I doubt whether David Miliband will be the next Labour leader. The reason why perhaps he does so well on betting markets is that Labour members are going to be so devastated by the scale of the defeat that Corbyn will inflict upon Labour at 10pm on the night of the next election that it is believed that Labour will turn back to Blairism. Which it wont and shouldnt. what it will need to do after the defeat of 2022 will be to turn back to the mainstream Labour free of the ideological extremes of Blairism and the neo Marxism of the Corbynistas.
0 -
I think many commentators underestimate the power of the self denying prophecy. May did badly because she was expected to win handsomely. People came out to prevent it. In 2022 we will have had 5 years of Corbyn being expected to win. People will come out in droves to prevent it. Labour was on an upward trajectory for so many reasons in 2017 which may not be appicable in 2022-and what goes up must come down. As a Labour supporter (non Blairite) I remain consistent to the view that Corbyn is an existential threat to the Labour party and that after the 2022 defeat Labour must return toTrue Labour, neither Blairite or Corbynista.OldKingCole said:
True. Bit like Feb 1974 or 2010. No-one really won; but lots of people could take something from it.stevef said:
Corbyn lost-winning about the same number of seats in Gordon Brown in 2010.OldKingCole said:
Much of that, to be fair, could have written in late May this year. Delete the words ‘of 2022” and you’re there.stevef said:I doubt whether David Miliband will be the next Labour leader. The reason why perhaps he does so well on betting markets is that Labour members are going to be so devastated by the scale of the defeat that Corbyn will inflict upon Labour at 10pm on the night of the next election that it is believed that Labour will turn back to Blairism. Which it wont and shouldnt. what it will need to do after the defeat of 2022 will be to turn back to the mainstream Labour free of the ideological extremes of Blairism and the neo Marxism of the Corbynistas.
My point is that Labour seems to be on an upward trajectory, and the Tories are not.
However Scotland, as ever, is different.0 -
I would have thought there was a lesson from Trump, Macron, Arden, KurzOldKingCole said:
True. Bit like Feb 1974 or 2010. No-one really won; but lots of people could take something from it.stevef said:
Corbyn lost-winning about the same number of seats in Gordon Brown in 2010.OldKingCole said:
Much of that, to be fair, could have written in late May this year. Delete the words ‘of 2022” and you’re there.stevef said:I doubt whether David Miliband will be the next Labour leader. The reason why perhaps he does so well on betting markets is that Labour members are going to be so devastated by the scale of the defeat that Corbyn will inflict upon Labour at 10pm on the night of the next election that it is believed that Labour will turn back to Blairism. Which it wont and shouldnt. what it will need to do after the defeat of 2022 will be to turn back to the mainstream Labour free of the ideological extremes of Blairism and the neo Marxism of the Corbynistas.
My point is that Labour seems to be on an upward trajectory, and the Tories are not.
However Scotland, as ever, is different.
Someone new, someone fresh, someone with answers (whether plausible or not) can easily storm the citadel very quickly.
I wouldn't care to predict what will happen in 2022. The range of possible outcomes seems to me unusually wide.
0 -
I also used to be convinced that Corbyn was a disaster for Labour, but no longer feel confident in that view.stevef said:
I think many commentators underestimate the power of the self denying prophecy. May did badly because she was expected to win handsomely. People came out to prevent it. In 2022 we will have had 5 years of Corbyn being expected to win. People will come out in droves to prevent it. Labour was on an upward trajectory for so many reasons in 2017 which may not be appicable in 2022-and what goes up must come down. As a Labour supporter (non Blairite) I remain consistent to the view that Corbyn is an existential threat to the Labour party and that after the 2022 defeat Labour must return toTrue Labour, neither Blairite or Corbynista.OldKingCole said:
True. Bit like Feb 1974 or 2010. No-one really won; but lots of people could take something from it.stevef said:
Corbyn lost-winning about the same number of seats in Gordon Brown in 2010.OldKingCole said:
Much of that, to be fair, could have written in late May this year. Delete the words ‘of 2022” and you’re there.stevef said:I doubt whether David Miliband will be the next Labour leader. The reason why perhaps he does so well on betting markets is that Labour members are going to be so devastated by the scale of the defeat that Corbyn will inflict upon Labour at 10pm on the night of the next election that it is believed that Labour will turn back to Blairism. Which it wont and shouldnt. what it will need to do after the defeat of 2022 will be to turn back to the mainstream Labour free of the ideological extremes of Blairism and the neo Marxism of the Corbynistas.
My point is that Labour seems to be on an upward trajectory, and the Tories are not.
However Scotland, as ever, is different.
Current polling suggests the main two parties are pretty much tied. That's hung parliament territory.0 -
On present polling it would be a Corbyn minority government with SNP and maybe LD confidence and supply.rottenborough said:
I also used to be convinced that Corbyn was a disaster for Labour, but no longer feel confident in that view.stevef said:
I think many commentators underestimate the power of the self denying prophecy. May did badly because she was expected to win handsomely. People came out to prevent it. In 2022 we will have had 5 years of Corbyn being expected to win. People will come out in droves to prevent it. Labour was on an upward trajectory for so many reasons in 2017 which may not be appicable in 2022-and what goes up must come down. As a Labour supporter (non Blairite) I remain consistent to the view that Corbyn is an existential threat to the Labour party and that after the 2022 defeat Labour must return toTrue Labour, neither Blairite or Corbynista.OldKingCole said:
True. Bit like Feb 1974 or 2010. No-one really won; but lots of people could take something from it.stevef said:
Corbyn lost-winning about the same number of seats in Gordon Brown in 2010.OldKingCole said:
Much of that, to be fair, could have written in late May this year. Delete the words ‘of 2022” and you’re there.stevef said:I doubt whether David Miliband will be the next Labour leader. The reason why perhaps he does so well on betting markets is that Labour members are going to be so devastated by the scale of the defeat that Corbyn will inflict upon Labour at 10pm on the night of the next election that it is believed that Labour will turn back to Blairism. Which it wont and shouldnt. what it will need to do after the defeat of 2022 will be to turn back to the mainstream Labour free of the ideological extremes of Blairism and the neo Marxism of the Corbynistas.
My point is that Labour seems to be on an upward trajectory, and the Tories are not.
However Scotland, as ever, is different.
Current polling suggests the main two parties are pretty much tied. That's hung parliament territory.0 -
I agree. And we have Brexit. If Kent is a lorry park and the fresh food shelves of Asda are empty - then who knows what will happen.YBarddCwsc said:
I would have thought there was a lesson from Trump, Macron, Arden, KurzOldKingCole said:
True. Bit like Feb 1974 or 2010. No-one really won; but lots of people could take something from it.stevef said:
Corbyn lost-winning about the same number of seats in Gordon Brown in 2010.OldKingCole said:
Much of that, to be fair, could have written in late May this year. Delete the words ‘of 2022” and you’re there.stevef said:I doubt whether David Miliband will be the next Labour leader. The reason why perhaps he does so well on betting markets is that Labour members are going to be so devastated by the scale of the defeat that Corbyn will inflict upon Labour at 10pm on the night of the next election that it is believed that Labour will turn back to Blairism. Which it wont and shouldnt. what it will need to do after the defeat of 2022 will be to turn back to the mainstream Labour free of the ideological extremes of Blairism and the neo Marxism of the Corbynistas.
My point is that Labour seems to be on an upward trajectory, and the Tories are not.
However Scotland, as ever, is different.
Someone new, someone fresh, someone with answers (whether plausible or not) can easily storm the citadel very quickly.
I wouldn't care to predict what will happen in 2022. The range of possible outcomes seems to me unusually wide.0 -
It’s not that they fight for social justice, it’s that they prioritise such higher-order things when significant portions of society are operating much lower down Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.Dura_Ace said:
"SJW" is a strange pejorative. If social justice isn't worth fighting for then what is?The_Apocalypse said:I’m sure some aren’t voting Labour because they see their supporters as SJWs or something like that, for example.
As an example, talking about transgendered bathrooms and not about jobs and housing.0 -
David Davis is also favourite to be next PM. Sanders is good value in the US, he is more likely to win in 2020 than either Pence or Warren in my view.david_herdson said:By the way, one snippet I had to cut from the lead article was that the two favourites to win the 2020 presidential race are both Republicans. Mike Pence is shorter odds (10/1) than any Democrat (12/1, Warren).
0 -
Labour win Maidenhead? Or possibly the LD’s.rottenborough said:
I agree. And we have Brexit. If Kent is a lorry park and the fresh food shelves of Asda are empty - then who knows what will happen.YBarddCwsc said:
I would have thought there was a lesson from Trump, Macron, Arden, KurzOldKingCole said:
True. Bit like Feb 1974 or 2010. No-one really won; but lots of people could take something from it.stevef said:
Corbyn lost-winning about the same number of seats in Gordon Brown in 2010.OldKingCole said:
Much of that, to be fair, could have written in late May this year. Delete the words ‘of 2022” and you’re there.stevef said:I doubt whether David Miliband will be the next Labour leader. The reason why perhaps he does so well on betting markets is that Labour members are going to be so devastated by the scale of the defeat that Corbyn will inflict upon Labour at 10pm on the night of the next election that it is believed that Labour will turn back to Blairism. Which it wont and shouldnt. what it will need to do after the defeat of 2022 will be to turn back to the mainstream Labour free of the ideological extremes of Blairism and the neo Marxism of the Corbynistas.
My point is that Labour seems to be on an upward trajectory, and the Tories are not.
However Scotland, as ever, is different.
Someone new, someone fresh, someone with answers (whether plausible or not) can easily storm the citadel very quickly.
I wouldn't care to predict what will happen in 2022. The range of possible outcomes seems to me unusually wide.0 -
That was the trouble with Cameron's Brexit referendum. He should have got the Pro-Brexit group to define X before the referendum.Recidivist said:
That's the trouble with being X. Everyone is always plotting against you.kle4 said:
No more than have a bad image of non-Tories, since last I checked the main two parties are about as popular as one another, give or take a few percent. And bad images of parties are rarely deserving (at least not to the extent such an image exists), just ask the LDs. People take the extreme views, then extrapolate that to everyone who might support that party, then say 'X is why I hate Y', even if most Y are not like that, making the justification of X pretty much just a covering excuse for dislike.The_Apocalypse said:
Reading Dan Hodges’ twitter feed is like reading PB whenever there’s racism or sexism scandal and understanding why so many have a bad image of Tories.dixiedean said:
Hodges is getting tedious. His one redeeming feature is that he is almost always wrong.rottenborough said:Wow. Hodges are gone over the top this morning:
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/9216602168900689920 -
With the RAF near destroyed after defeat by the Luftwaffe the Royal Navy would have been sitting ducks for German dive bombers as the film Dunkirk showeddavid_herdson said:
No, but the Royal Navy would have been. There've been a lot of studies done about Sealion. The general consensus is that it was only winnable for Germany if it devoted the greater part of its military power to it, not just in deployment but in terms of the sort of equipment ordered and built, and if the invasion was scheduled for the Spring of 1941. That, in turn, would have delayed Barbarossa - the real purpose of the war from Hitler's point - until at least 1942, by which time the Red Army would have recovered further still from the Purge.HYUFD said:
I suppose I should have rephrased that as 'the much use in protecting us from the subsequent Nazi invasion.foxinsoxuk said:
Not quite! In 1940 we had Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, all self governing, as allies. As well as these we had the Colonies or Protectorates of India, Malaya, Africa, West Indies and Middle East. Hardly alone, we had a quarter of the world in terms of landmass and population on our side.HYUFD said:
The US only entered WW2 after Pearl Harbour in 1941 so if it was still fighting Japan under a different President it would likely have still fought the Nazis. Let us not forget the UK fought the Battle of Britain essentially alone in 1940 apart from some Poles, Czechs and free French in exiledavid_herdson said:
As noted elsewhere, far from being the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed, the absence of it in 1940 may well have been the saviour of freedom, at least in Europe.TheScreamingEagles said:
All because vindictive and loser Republicans considered FDR serving sixteen years, the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed.david_herdson said:
That may be true but the
The 22nd Amendment is a very stupid thing.
I mean really, is that the most dangerous threat to freedom ever proposed?
A less capable and less confident president than FDR - and whoever replaced him would have been both - might easily have condemned Britain to having to seek t of Japan, the US could easily have slipped back into isolationism mixed with an even more rabid domestic Commuphobia and social conservatism.
Britain was in a reasonable state to withstand an invasion. Where it was vulnerable in 1940/1 was firstly in being able to carry on the fight, and secondly, in the Atlantic supply chain.0 -
and then spelt it out on the actual ballot paper.eristdoof said:
That was the trouble with Cameron's Brexit referendum. He should have got the Pro-Brexit group to define X before the referendum.Recidivist said:
That's the trouble with being X. Everyone is always plotting against you.kle4 said:
No more than have a bad image of non-Tories, since last I checked the main two parties are about as popular as one another, give or take a few percent. And bad images of parties are rarely deserving (at least not to the extent such an image exists), just ask the LDs. People take the extreme views, then extrapolate that to everyone who might support that party, then say 'X is why I hate Y', even if most Y are not like that, making the justification of X pretty much just a covering excuse for dislike.The_Apocalypse said:
Reading Dan Hodges’ twitter feed is like reading PB whenever there’s racism or sexism scandal and understanding why so many have a bad image of Tories.dixiedean said:
Hodges is getting tedious. His one redeeming feature is that he is almost always wrong.rottenborough said:Wow. Hodges are gone over the top this morning:
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/921660216890068992
e.g. with a * to note that "by leaving the EU we mean leaving single market, customs union"0 -
Unlikely, unless they were carrying sniper rifles and trained in their use. I doubt 100 hand guns firing from the concert area at Mr Paddock would have made the slightest differnce to Mr Paddock's antics.Sean_F said:
I have heard arguments that the reason so many people died at Las Vegas is because the concert-goers were unarmed and couldn't shoot back at the gunman.The_Apocalypse said:Also, I don’t think the NRA are alt-right. They’ve been associated with the GOP now for a good while.
Genuine question, does anyone know of if any of these (hundreds of?) spree shooters have been stopped by a civilian carrying a firearm?0 -
Maybe it will be a society like the Children of Men or The Road.rottenborough said:
I agree. And we have Brexit. If Kent is a lorry park and the fresh food shelves of Asda are empty - then who knows what will happen.YBarddCwsc said:
I would have thought there was a lesson from Trump, Macron, Arden, KurzOldKingCole said:
True. Bit like Feb 1974 or 2010. No-one really won; but lots of people could take something from it.stevef said:
Corbyn lost-winning about the same number of seats in Gordon Brown in 2010.OldKingCole said:
Much of that, to be fair, could have written in late May this year. Delete the words ‘of 2022” and you’re there.stevef said:I doubt whether David Miliband will be the next Labour leader. The reason why perhaps he does so well on betting markets is that Labour members are going to be so devastated by the scale of the defeat that Corbyn will inflict upon Labour at 10pm on the night of the next election that it is believed that Labour will turn back to Blairism. Which it wont and shouldnt. what it will need to do after the defeat of 2022 will be to turn back to the mainstream Labour free of the ideological extremes of Blairism and the neo Marxism of the Corbynistas.
My point is that Labour seems to be on an upward trajectory, and the Tories are not.
However Scotland, as ever, is different.
Someone new, someone fresh, someone with answers (whether plausible or not) can easily storm the citadel very quickly.
I wouldn't care to predict what will happen in 2022. The range of possible outcomes seems to me unusually wide.0 -
I'm not convinced by the NRA's argument.Theuniondivvie said:
Unlikely, unless they were carrying sniper rifles and trained in their use. I doubt 100 hand guns firing from the concert area at Mr Paddock would have made the slightest differnce to Mr Paddock's antics.Sean_F said:
I have heard arguments that the reason so many people died at Las Vegas is because the concert-goers were unarmed and couldn't shoot back at the gunman.The_Apocalypse said:Also, I don’t think the NRA are alt-right. They’ve been associated with the GOP now for a good while.
Genuine question, does anyone know of if any of these (hundreds of?) spree shooters have been stopped by a civilian carrying a firearm?
I'm pretty sure that spree shooters only get shot down by professionals.0 -
Rajoy approves take over of Catalonia, will call new election0
-
If half the people in a crowd have guns and someone fires a gun from outside the crowd, the chances of chaos and carnage are very high.Sean_F said:
I have heard arguments that the reason so many people died at Las Vegas is because the concert-goers were unarmed and couldn't shoot back at the gunman.The_Apocalypse said:Also, I don’t think the NRA are alt-right. They’ve been associated with the GOP now for a good while.
You just need one person to pull a gun, another to think that he had fired the gun in the first place. The second guy shoots and suddenly the crowd is firing on itself.
0 -
Is Morris Dancer ghostwriting your posts? That's the type of reductive guff he would come out with.Sandpit said:
It’s not that they fight for social justice, it’s that they prioritise such higher-order things when significant portions of society are operating much lower down Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.Dura_Ace said:
"SJW" is a strange pejorative. If social justice isn't worth fighting for then what is?The_Apocalypse said:I’m sure some aren’t voting Labour because they see their supporters as SJWs or something like that, for example.
As an example, talking about transgendered bathrooms and not about jobs and housing.
Empathy and concomitant activism are completely subjective. Not everyone has the same perceptions and responses to issues.0
