politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The latest powerful ad from the Republican organisation that i

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

IanB2 said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

eristdoof said:

OllyT said:

MrEd said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.

It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.

It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?

The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.

Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?

Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.

As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.

In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.

Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.

Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.

He is an "elected" Tsar.

Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.

Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist?
Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.

Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.



Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.

He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.

LadyG said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

IanB2 said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

eristdoof said:

OllyT said:

MrEd said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.

It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.

It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?

The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.

Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?

Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.

As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.

In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.

Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.

Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.

He is an "elected" Tsar.

Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.

Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist?
Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.

Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.



Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.

He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.

Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.

Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Sean_F said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MrEd said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

rcs1000 said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1278726307992473601

It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.

That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.

To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.

But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.

The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.

If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.

Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.

But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.

If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.

Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?

Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.

Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.

Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.

Which of the two has made the right call?

THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.

Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.

Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.

It's been an interesting contrast between the two countries. There's little doubt that voters are increasingly hostile towards BLM in the UK - as they realise what the organisation actually stands for.

Key thing about US BLM is that it has gone WAY beyond just a core group of activists. Plus, in US the record of police contempt for and injustice to African Americans is so obvious & pervasive.

Back in 1988 yours truly was in training just outside Chicago to be a manager for a college-book buying company. One of the trainers was Black. One day he said he had to dash out to the parking lot to get something out of his car. Somebody said, hey, you better walk, you don't want some cop to shoot your ass. He laughed, we all laughed.

A generation later, you could still tell the same joke. But the laughter would be a bit more hollow.

THAT is why there's been a sea change here - because Americans KNOW that BLM is NOT just political correctness run amok.

dodrade said:

IanB2 said:

CNN: FBI New York Assistant Director in Charge William Sweeney said that bureau officials "have been discreetly keeping tabs" on Maxwell who had "slithered away to a gorgeous property" in New Hampshire.

"We learned she had slithered away to a gorgeous property in New Hampshire, continuing to live a live a life of privilege while her victims continue to live with the trauma inflicted upon them years ago. We moved when we were ready and Ms. Maxwell was arrested without incident,” he said.

Sweeney said that the FBI, along with the NYPD, arrested Maxwell in Bradford, New Hampshire, this morning without incident.

Very surprised she was still in the US.

Richard_Tyndall said:

slade said:

Just discovered that SeanT's grandfather knew LLoyd George. He stood as a Liberal candidate in 1918 and used to travel into London with LG. Lloyd George also signed a letter to The Times asking for a memorial to his son Edward Thomas for his services to poetry.

Just a second. Just read this on the previous thread. Is this for real? Is SeanT genuinely the grandson of Edward Thomas. Along with John Clare, Thomas is one of my great poetic heroes.

Is this real or someone messing about?

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MrEd said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MrEd said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

rcs1000 said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1278726307992473601

It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.

That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.

To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.

But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.

The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.

If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.

Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.

But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.

If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.

Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?

Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.

Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.

Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.

Which of the two has made the right call?

THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.

Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.

Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.

I'm not sure. I'm married to an American and every day she shows me a new site where young black American (mainly) men telling the Black community it needs to stop blaming the cops for the endemic violence in the cities. They might just be Trump shrills paid for by the Russians but you also have minority communities in the big cities complaining about the massive rise in gun violence which impacts them more than police brutality

The two things - reality of both police injustice AND black-on-black violence - are NOT mutually exclusive. Indeed, they tend to feed upon & reinforce one another.

Sad thing about "Black Lives Matter" is that the two groups who are LEAST likely to believe in the concept, are White police officers and Black gang-bangers.

Peter_the_Punter said:

isam said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

That has to be the funniest VAR yet. Spurs didn't even get a free-kick!

Yup, reminds me of a European Cup match featuring Dirty Leeds when a Leeds player was kicked into an offside position.

That remains one of the crookedest refereeing performances I've ever seen. It lives in the memory and I'm certainly not a Weeds Punited fan.

It wasn't just the one decision, although that offside was about as bad as it gets. It was the whole game. Weeds were so superior that the ref had to bend over backwards just to give their opponents a chance and even then they nearly muffed it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM747L9Wf8M

Not seen that before but it looks pretty terrible.

Like most refs, I can spot a crooked one quickly and with a lot more certainty than your average football fan, but I have to see it live and without the commentary etc. Last obviously crooked one I saw was Tunisia v England in the 2018 WC but there was such a gulf in class between the sides that Tunisia still got beat.

Let me just enlighten you by pointing out that crooked performances often arise less from the crude delivery of notes in a brown envelope than from the eagerness of some officials to ingratiate themselves with the powerful owners and administrators sitting in the stands. They know who is there, and officiate accordingly.

That may be what happened with the game in question. You may also recall there was once a very long period during which the England team could never get a penalty yet conceded very many soft ones. It coincided with a period when Sepp Blatter and his mates were displeased with the FA. No need to join up the dots there!

LadyG said:

williamglenn said:

LadyG said:

Just learned that there is now a self-sustaining population of 100 Great Bustards in southern England.

What a magnificent thing. A wonderful reintroduction.

This bird, one of the largest flying animals in thw world, went extinct in the UK in 1832.

Nice to have good news.

Other bird of prey news:

https://twitter.com/trackingsharks/status/1277986456489750529

WTAF. Is it a Condor? A bald eagle? Where?

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

IanB2 said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

eristdoof said:

OllyT said:

MrEd said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.

It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.

It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?

The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.

Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?

Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.

As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.

In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.

Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.

Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.

He is an "elected" Tsar.

Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.

Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist?
Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.

Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.



Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.

He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.

Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.

Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity

When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?

lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule

"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"

Floater said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MrEd said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MrEd said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

rcs1000 said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1278726307992473601

It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.

That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.

To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.

But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.

The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.

If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.

Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.

But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.

If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.

Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?

Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.

Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.

Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.

Which of the two has made the right call?

THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.

Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.

Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.

I'm not sure. I'm married to an American and every day she shows me a new site where young black American (mainly) men telling the Black community it needs to stop blaming the cops for the endemic violence in the cities. They might just be Trump shrills paid for by the Russians but you also have minority communities in the big cities complaining about the massive rise in gun violence which impacts them more than police brutality

The two things - reality of both police injustice AND black-on-black violence - are NOT mutually exclusive. Indeed, they tend to feed upon & reinforce one another.

Sad thing about "Black Lives Matter" is that the two groups who are LEAST likely to believe in the concept, are White police officers and Black gang-bangers.

Black, um, what??

You never heard the term gang banger before?

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

IanB2 said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

eristdoof said:

OllyT said:

MrEd said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.

It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.

It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?

The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.

Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?

Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.

As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.

In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.

Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.

Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.

He is an "elected" Tsar.

Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.

Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist?
Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.

Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.



Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.

He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.

Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.

Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity

When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?

lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule

"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"

After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.

Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

IanB2 said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

eristdoof said:

OllyT said:

MrEd said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.

It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.

It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?

The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.

Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?

Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.

As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.

In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.

Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.

Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.

He is an "elected" Tsar.

Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.

Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist?
Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.

Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.



Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.

He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.

Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.

Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity

When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?

lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule

"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"

After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.

Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,

LadyG said:

williamglenn said:

LadyG said:

Just learned that there is now a self-sustaining population of 100 Great Bustards in southern England.

What a magnificent thing. A wonderful reintroduction.

This bird, one of the largest flying animals in thw world, went extinct in the UK in 1832.

Nice to have good news.

Other bird of prey news:

https://twitter.com/trackingsharks/status/1277986456489750529

WTAF. Is it a Condor? A bald eagle? Where?

Floater said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Floater said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MrEd said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MrEd said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

rcs1000 said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1278726307992473601

It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.

That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.

To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.

But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.

The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.

If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.

Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.

But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.

If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.

Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?

Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.

Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.

Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.

Which of the two has made the right call?

THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.

Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.

Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.

I'm not sure. I'm married to an American and every day she shows me a new site where young black American (mainly) men telling the Black community it needs to stop blaming the cops for the endemic violence in the cities. They might just be Trump shrills paid for by the Russians but you also have minority communities in the big cities complaining about the massive rise in gun violence which impacts them more than police brutality

The two things - reality of both police injustice AND black-on-black violence - are NOT mutually exclusive. Indeed, they tend to feed upon & reinforce one another.

Sad thing about "Black Lives Matter" is that the two groups who are LEAST likely to believe in the concept, are White police officers and Black gang-bangers.

Black, um, what??

You never heard the term gang banger before?

I have heard it, that's the issue!

There might be more than one meaning.......

Philip_Thompson said:

Floater said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Floater said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MrEd said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

MrEd said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

rcs1000 said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1278726307992473601

It's interesting: most Presidents who lose the House at their first midterms (such as Clinton) tack hard to the centre. Indeed, you might argue that losing the House forces moderation, and therefore increases their likelihood of re-election.

That's not Trump's style. And I think it's his greatest weakness. Getting re-elected means you want to try and expand your coalition. And Trump has doubled down on his core vote strategy.

To work it requires that the people he connects with - non-urban whites - come out in record numbers. Can it work? Yes, of course. US Presidential elections are relatively low-turnout, and if you can really enthuse the base you can win.

But it's a pretty high risk strategy. Because you are throwing away some votes (hopefully to DNV) and hoping you collect more, while also avoiding increasing the turnout of those voting explicitly against you.

The core vote see statues coming down and police departments getting defunded. They are scared.

If Trump tacks to the centre, no way will they turn out for him.

Oh, it's too late for Trump to change course.

But he's chosen to lose suburban women who preferred his (as it appeared) honest competence to Hillary Clinton.

If he's lucky, suburban women will go to DNV. If he's unlucky, they'll go to Biden. And if they go to Biden, he needs to pick up two new DNVs in his base for ever one he loses. That's a tough call.

Do we really believe the protests are not going to have an influence on how people vote, particularly in the suburbs?

Look at the UK. We have had far less serious issues than the US yet Starmer felt the need to disassociate himself from BLM even though, looking at the polls, you would have said the BLM protests were not having an impact on either Labour or Starmer's ratings. Why was that? Because he saw the polling and realised that most of the population didn't like what is happening and, more to the point, there was electoral risk from being seen as too associated with BLM.

Starmer gets it. There was a significant risk to the Labour brand from being seen to be associated with extreme demands.

Now look at the States. Far more serious riots, tearing down of statues etc etc. And the polling suggests that Americans think broadly along the same lines as Brits when it comes to things such as defund the Police. Yet the Democrats have allowed themselves to be associated with the protests in the sense they have not pushed back hard against the more radical calls; Biden is saying zip for fear of being accused of being not pro-Black; and you have vocal members such as AOC saying that $1bn in NYPD cuts do not go far enough.

Which of the two has made the right call?

THERE HAS BEEN A SEA CHANGE IN US - Trump & GOP believed riots would ruin BLM and turn off swing voters. BUT polling shows that it has NOT worked out that way - which surprises me as much as them.

Why? Because of the wretched excesses of a small minority of protesters were contrasted with continuing evidence of police misconduct and incompetence. PLUS the fact that the murder of George Floyd was filmed in real time. The straw that broke the camels back.

Trumpsky thought the nation would rally around him. They are rallying alright - including NASCAR! - around BLM.

I'm not sure. I'm married to an American and every day she shows me a new site where young black American (mainly) men telling the Black community it needs to stop blaming the cops for the endemic violence in the cities. They might just be Trump shrills paid for by the Russians but you also have minority communities in the big cities complaining about the massive rise in gun violence which impacts them more than police brutality

The two things - reality of both police injustice AND black-on-black violence - are NOT mutually exclusive. Indeed, they tend to feed upon & reinforce one another.

Sad thing about "Black Lives Matter" is that the two groups who are LEAST likely to believe in the concept, are White police officers and Black gang-bangers.

Black, um, what??

You never heard the term gang banger before?

I have heard it, that's the issue!

There might be more than one meaning.......

I've heard two different meanings before and from context can infer which of the two it is.

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

IanB2 said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

eristdoof said:

OllyT said:

MrEd said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.

It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.

It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?

The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.

Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?

Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.

As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.

In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.

Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.

Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.

He is an "elected" Tsar.

Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.

Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist?
Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.

Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.



Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.

He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.

Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.

Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity

When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?

lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule

"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"

After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.

Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,

LadyG said:

rcs1000 said:

LadyG said:

rcs1000 said:

LadyG said:

As predicted, the Revolution begins to devour its own

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1278775456477650944?s=20

Which is why woke/BLM is actually nothing to worry about.

Delusionally naive.

That's like saying the French Revolution ain't nothing to worry about because Robespierre gets it in the end.

My delusions don't seem to cause me any actual problems, unlike people who think either woke/BLM is the center of the world, or that it is the greatest threat to the world.

It seems that the whole culture wars is a way of impoverishing the easily led as they cease to do actual work, while enriching the rest of us.

Hey ho.

I think if you were creative and worked n the creative industries - like film, literature, theatre, music - or if you worked in academe, media, journalism, politics, then you would be much more exercised by this,

But you work in niche areas of tech which are probably the last to be affected by the mania. So you are clueless. You are like a French aristocrat in, say, rural Languedoc, wondering what all this Revolution fuss is about, up there in Paris

SandyRentool said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/gabyhinsliff/status/1278782202424242178

What time do Spoons open? 8am?

rcs1000 said:

LadyG said:

rcs1000 said:

LadyG said:

rcs1000 said:

LadyG said:

As predicted, the Revolution begins to devour its own

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1278775456477650944?s=20

Which is why woke/BLM is actually nothing to worry about.

Delusionally naive.

That's like saying the French Revolution ain't nothing to worry about because Robespierre gets it in the end.

My delusions don't seem to cause me any actual problems, unlike people who think either woke/BLM is the center of the world, or that it is the greatest threat to the world.

It seems that the whole culture wars is a way of impoverishing the easily led as they cease to do actual work, while enriching the rest of us.

Hey ho.

I think if you were creative and worked n the creative industries - like film, literature, theatre, music - or if you worked in academe, media, journalism, politics, then you would be much more exercised by this,

But you work in niche areas of tech which are probably the last to be affected by the mania. So you are clueless. You are like a French aristocrat in, say, rural Languedoc, wondering what all this Revolution fuss is about, up there in Paris

Wake me up when the revolution involves actual people being killed, rather than being mildly inconvenienced.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1278760098043777024

Black_Rook said:

Floater said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/moscowtimes/status/1278750284190060544?s=21

What was that LadyG/Eadric/SeanT was saying about the second half of 2020 couldn't be any worse?

Next up - nuclear war between India and China......

The Indian nuclear deterrent makes an all-out attack on India by China that much less likely.

China wants Taiwan back and also has a territorial dispute with Japan. They appear to be more likely targets for disastrous military adventurism.

Theuniondivvie said:

Sunk ship disposes of rodent.

https://twitter.com/MaryRoseMuseum/status/1278747426120220672?s=20

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1278760098043777024

Who

Dude, she's the Shadow Chancellor...

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Black_Rook said:

Floater said:

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/moscowtimes/status/1278750284190060544?s=21

What was that LadyG/Eadric/SeanT was saying about the second half of 2020 couldn't be any worse?

Next up - nuclear war between India and China......

The Indian nuclear deterrent makes an all-out attack on India by China that much less likely.

China wants Taiwan back and also has a territorial dispute with Japan. They appear to be more likely targets for disastrous military adventurism.

Chinese action versus India is for domestic consumption, to (try to) distract Chinese public from the follies & failures of the regime.

Xi's not crazy enough to truly provoke US or Taiwan or Korea (North or South) & Japan. Is in bed (sort of) with Russia. As for Vietnam, well Chinese tried that back in late 70s and got a bloody nose (not as bad but something like Russia versus Finland in Winter War).

So whose left to kick around? India.

LadyG said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

LadyG said:

brokenwheel said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

IanB2 said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

eristdoof said:

OllyT said:

MrEd said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.

It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.

It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?

The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.

Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?

Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.

As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.

In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.

Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.

Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.

He is an "elected" Tsar.

Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.

Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist?
Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.

Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.



Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.

He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.

Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.

Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity

When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?

lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule

"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"

After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.

Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,

Austrians have always been considered a German people, hence the public desire for Anschluss with the collapse of the Hapsburgs. Georgians have never been a Russian people.

But Hitler wasn't even ethnically German, by his own warped standards.

Hitler idolised the tall blond Aryan, as we know. Yet Hitler was definitely short, and dark haired, and probably grey eyed rather than blue (accounts vary)

There are a lot ofquite cogent theories that Hitler was probably the product of mixed Slavic/Celtic descent, FWIW, rather than Germanic.

So a comparison with the Georgian but Russian-speaking Stalin is not inapt

Grey eyes would make him more Aryan wouldn't they? More white anyway. The spectrum, depending on the degree of pigmentation, goes brown, hazel, green, blue, grey, white.

It's rather distasteful, but then, this is Hitler

So the thinking is, the grey eyes suggest a hint of north European blonde Nordic ancestry, but the short stature and dark looks indicate a predominance of Slavic/Celtic maybe even Balkan genes.

Hitler certainly would not have featured in any Leni Riefesntahl films as an Aryan ideal

Luckyguy1983 said:

eristdoof said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

IanB2 said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

eristdoof said:

OllyT said:

MrEd said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.

It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.

It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?

The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.

Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?

Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.

As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.

In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.

Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.

Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.

He is an "elected" Tsar.

Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.

Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist?
Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.

Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.



Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.

He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.

Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.

Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity

When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?

lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule

"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"

After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.

Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,

As far as I understand it, the German Nationalism at that time was much more to do with a "Nation" of German speaking people and rather than the country of Germany, which in the early 20th century was still a relatively recent creation. It was this type of German Nationalism that Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka Nazi) stood for. In that context it makes no difference if Hitler was born in Germany or in Austria, because he was German.

Indeed. And contrary to the plot of 'The Sound of Music', there wasn't really an Austrian national identity, as it had been part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before WWI.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1278760098043777024

Who

Dude, she's the Shadow Chancellor...

Really

And Scousers 4 down

LadyG said:

rcs1000 said:

LadyG said:

rcs1000 said:

LadyG said:

rcs1000 said:

LadyG said:

As predicted, the Revolution begins to devour its own

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1278775456477650944?s=20

Which is why woke/BLM is actually nothing to worry about.

Delusionally naive.

That's like saying the French Revolution ain't nothing to worry about because Robespierre gets it in the end.

My delusions don't seem to cause me any actual problems, unlike people who think either woke/BLM is the center of the world, or that it is the greatest threat to the world.

It seems that the whole culture wars is a way of impoverishing the easily led as they cease to do actual work, while enriching the rest of us.

Hey ho.

I think if you were creative and worked n the creative industries - like film, literature, theatre, music - or if you worked in academe, media, journalism, politics, then you would be much more exercised by this,

But you work in niche areas of tech which are probably the last to be affected by the mania. So you are clueless. You are like a French aristocrat in, say, rural Languedoc, wondering what all this Revolution fuss is about, up there in Paris

Wake me up when the revolution involves actual people being killed, rather than being mildly inconvenienced.

Do you not watch the actual news??

ttps://twitter.com/MatthewGalanty/status/1277800869967335425?s=20

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1278760098043777024

Who

Dude, she's the Shadow Chancellor...

Really

And Scousers 4 down

I think you must be mistaken, the season ended last week, there's no game on tonight. 🙈

LadyG said:

brokenwheel said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

IanB2 said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

eristdoof said:

OllyT said:

MrEd said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.

It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.

It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?

The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.

Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?

Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.

As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.

In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.

Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.

Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.

He is an "elected" Tsar.

Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.

Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist?
Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.

Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.



Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.

He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.

Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.

Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity

When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?

lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule

"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"

After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.

Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,

Austrians have always been considered a German people, hence the public desire for Anschluss with the collapse of the Hapsburgs. Georgians have never been a Russian people.

But Hitler wasn't even ethnically German, by his own warped standards.

Hitler idolised the tall blond Aryan, as we know. Yet Hitler was definitely short, and dark haired, and probably grey eyed rather than blue (accounts vary)

There are a lot ofquite cogent theories that Hitler was probably the product of mixed Slavic/Celtic descent, FWIW, rather than Germanic.

So a comparison with the Georgian but Russian-speaking Stalin is not inapt

LadyG said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

LadyG said:

brokenwheel said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

IanB2 said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

eristdoof said:

OllyT said:

MrEd said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.

It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.

It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?

The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.

Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?

Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.

As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.

In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.

Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.

Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.

He is an "elected" Tsar.

Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.

Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist?
Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.

Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.



Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.

He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.

Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.

Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity

When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?

lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule

"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"

After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.

Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,

Austrians have always been considered a German people, hence the public desire for Anschluss with the collapse of the Hapsburgs. Georgians have never been a Russian people.

But Hitler wasn't even ethnically German, by his own warped standards.

Hitler idolised the tall blond Aryan, as we know. Yet Hitler was definitely short, and dark haired, and probably grey eyed rather than blue (accounts vary)

There are a lot ofquite cogent theories that Hitler was probably the product of mixed Slavic/Celtic descent, FWIW, rather than Germanic.

So a comparison with the Georgian but Russian-speaking Stalin is not inapt

Grey eyes would make him more Aryan wouldn't they? More white anyway. The spectrum, depending on the degree of pigmentation, goes brown, hazel, green, blue, grey, white.

It's rather distasteful, but then, this is Hitler

So the thinking is, the grey eyes suggest a hint of north European blonde Nordic ancestry, but the short stature and dark looks indicate a predominance of Slavic/Celtic maybe even Balkan genes.

Hitler certainly would not have featured in any Leni Riefesntahl films as an Aryan ideal

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1278760098043777024

Who

Dude, she's the Shadow Chancellor...

Really

And Scousers 4 down

I think you must be mistaken, the season ended last week, there's no game on tonight. 🙈

Big_G_NorthWales said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1278760098043777024

Who

matthiasfromhamburg said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

eristdoof said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

LadyG said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

matthiasfromhamburg said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

LadyG said:

IanB2 said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

eristdoof said:

OllyT said:

MrEd said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

Personally, I don't like the ad. It's too busy, and you need to be able to read really quick. And Putin isn't Communist. And there's no real "evidence" in there.

It's not bad, and most voters will remember the Russian links to the last election. Tbh I find a lot of the Lincoln adverts underwhelming but this one is OK.

It's just a bit meh. More to the point, I'm not sure whom it's really targeting. I guess it is the more educated, suburban Republican who has a grasp of foreign affairs and is interested in the outside world. The thing is, though, if you are one of those people, you know that Putin isn't a Communist so it just feels a bit forced. Also, he's been President for four years and it is hard to point to something major where you would say "yup, he's in Putin pocket". The Syrian stuff is too convoluted and he hasn't let Putin take over the Baltics or Ukraine so where exactly is the evidence he is soft on Russia vs, eg, Obama?

The Lincoln Project aren't after Trump's core voters they after the younger, college educated urban and suburban Republican that gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2016.

Wouldn't this group realise that all the Soviet images and references have nothing to do with Putin?

Putin is a neo-Commie. Just as committed to the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. as Soviets (dictatorship yes, but by, for and of the politiburo) just substituting crony capitalism for crony communism.

As for Lincoln project, note that in 2016 the Never Trumpers were NOT willing to vote for Hillary. This year, they are saying DO vote for Uncle Joe.

In rough trade of politics, this is what's called a two-fer: not only do you take a vote away from one side, you are giving it to the other, thus a net gain (in this case) of +2 for Dem and net loss of -2 for Team Evil.

Actually there’s an argument that he is a right wing dictator. There is more of a cult of personality, the economy is oligarchic rather than planned, the politics is nationalistic in tone, and reactionary rather than revolutionary.

Putin is more like a Roman Emperor, than definitively right or left. He is successful because he expands the empire and keeps the peace, when Rome is surrounded by enemies.

He is an "elected" Tsar.

Putin is Stalin without the Marxist gobbledegook and with crony capitalism instead of crony communism. Both Russian nationalists just like Czars before them.

Josip Vissarionovich Djugashvili from Gori, Governorate Tbilisi, was a Russian nationalist?
Well, that's a view. An American view, I suppose.

Hitler wasn't German, he was Austrian.



Also, Stalin really DID appeal to Russian Nationalism during the dark days of Barbarossa. He said the Motherland was being raped, he even called on the Russian Orthodox Church.

He was Georgian but he knew how to ride the bear.

Stalin most definitely WAS a Russian nationalist. Yes, he liked to have Georgians about him and sometimes used their native language as a secret code. Just like Lloyd George had his Cambrian inner circle and spoke Welsh with them. Did that mean DLG was a Paid Cmyru pre-cursor? Hardly - he was a British nationalist.

Yes, I think that's fair. Stalin was ethnically Georgian but he exploited Russian nationalism/patriotism at every opportunity

When exactly did these opportunities arise, other than in 1942/43?

lol. Those were literally the years when Stalin, for all his evil flaws, saved Russia (and the Soviet Union) from eternal extinction and Nazi rule

"What did this Churchill fellow do, other than in 1940-1942?"

After falling for the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ruse earlier, and initially refusing to believe the SU was attacked when that in fact happened, he then did his utmost to put up fierce resistance, I would never deny that. But calling him a "Russian nationalist" overall seems blatantly absurd to me.

Hitler was Austrian. But he was a German Nationalist. You as a German should understand this,

As far as I understand it, the German Nationalism at that time was much more to do with a "Nation" of German speaking people and rather than the country of Germany, which in the early 20th century was still a relatively recent creation. It was this type of German Nationalism that Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' Party (aka Nazi) stood for. In that context it makes no difference if Hitler was born in Germany or in Austria, because he was German.

Indeed. And contrary to the plot of 'The Sound of Music', there wasn't really an Austrian national identity, as it had been part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before WWI.

I disagree. There was a very distinct Austrian national identity. Even after Königgrätz, and even after the end of the House of Habsburg. Although in 1938 there was a clear majority for the Anschluß.

LadyG said:

rcs1000 said:

LadyG said:

As predicted, the Revolution begins to devour its own

https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1278775456477650944?s=20

Which is why woke/BLM is actually nothing to worry about.

Delusionally naive.

That's like saying the French Revolution ain't nothing to worry about because Robespierre gets it in the end.