politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Joe Biden says his VP choice will be announced in the first we

I notice that Karen Bass's Wikipedia page has lost the banner complaining it looks like an advert, so clearly someone has been tidying it up.

Fearless Prediction - Uncle Joe will NOT choose either of the top names on current Betfair list.

But IF he does, yours truly will wholeheartedly support his decision.

In previous White House races the first news of who has got the VP pick comes when a sneak pic of the campaign plan is circulated

FPT:

stodge said:

It was the experience of Suez that convinced Macmillan Britain's destiny lay in closer economic ties with Europe which set us on the road which ended in 2016 with us voting to leave the EU.

Didn't it also make Britain become much more closely aligned with the US? That's not a contradiction as the US has always supported UK membership of the EU (and it's predecessors).

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

rpjs said:

Foxy said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

noneoftheabove said:

isam said:

IshmaelZ said:

Stereotomy said:

IshmaelZ said:

It's like four weeks ago when we thought there wouldn't be a statue left standing in the country by now.

Yes, who could possibly have foreseen that that was overblown, hysterical nonsense?

I didn't know because I had no yardstick to judge how seriously to take BLM. It turns out they are more "Yeah black lives are really really important, sure, but it's vital to keep a sense of perspective."

Maybe the people on the protests think it's job done now!

Wasnt on the protests but think its job done "for" now rather than job done. Those open to change have listened and understood, those resistant arent ready for change at the moment.

Yes. Frank reappraisal of Empire was never going to be the work of a single wet Wednesday afternoon.

The historians will have a lot of work to do rewriting their books now HYUFD has discovered that Britain was in fact the main Western superpower until near the end of the Cold War.

I said until the independence of India and I also said superpower not the only one

Britain stopped being a super-power the day Singapore fell. Or rather a few weeks before, when Japanese sunk HMS Prince of Wales & HMS Repulse.

OR you could stay the end was mid-WWII, when Britain became dependent upon US credit to stay afloat fiscally.

Yes, I think the fall of Singapore, with the similar surrender of Hong Kong and retreat from Burma represented Britain's collapse of Empire. Particularly so because the defeats were so abject a d also defeat was at the hands of a non European power.

Not only was this a collapse of the racial, and military "superiority" of the British Empire, but the subsequent rift with Australia turned it towards America. The Empire was toast after that.

Arguably the end was the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Britain had shown itself to be incapable of maintaining a hold on its oldest colony, which indeed was legally not a colony part of the metropolis itself. Yes, the UK was able to maintain the fiction, for a few years, that Ireland was still part of "His Majesty's dominions" but the reality was that British power was no longer invincible.

Yes, I accept that is true. While the Empire increased in size post WW1, the financial situation was dire. At that time though America was looking inward, and other European countries down on their luck too.

Britain as a world power ended after Singapore though. The writing was on the wall.

I was musing on this Tweet the other day:

https://twitter.com/arlenparsa/status/1168199200183586816?s=09

It is easy to spot the hypocrisy of the USA founding fathers, but our hypocrisy fighting a war against tyranny with an undemocratic empire based on racial superiority, and well within living memory, is pretty stark too.

Only if you pretend all sins are equal.

No need for that, though of course a lot of our Empire building included slavery, seizure of lands, and ethnic cleansing for white settlement. Mostly historic by 1945, but the political cause of WW2 collapsed the worldwide European Empires as thoroughly as WW1 had collapsed the land Empires of Europe (including our own in Ireland). National self determination was not just a European phenomenon any more.

Veep. Cross-over!!!

Dead heat in Veep stakes. 2.92

Foxy said:

I never said that the British Empire of 1940 was as evil as Nazi Germany, just that it was intrinsically racist and undemocratic.

Your exact words were: "our hypocrisy fighting a war against tyranny with an undemocratic empire based on racial superiority, and well within living memory, is pretty stark too."

In what conceivable world is that not implying that the British empire was as evil as Nazi Germany? Should we not have opposed Hitler because it was hypocritical to do so? Really, are you mad?

I am having a problem signing in. I have changed my password and no problem with my mobile but cannot sign in on my tablet

Am I missing something

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

I never said that the British Empire of 1940 was as evil as Nazi Germany, just that it was intrinsically racist and undemocratic.

Your exact words were: "our hypocrisy fighting a war against tyranny with an undemocratic empire based on racial superiority, and well within living memory, is pretty stark too."

In what conceivable world is that not implying that the British empire was as evil as Nazi Germany? Should we not have opposed Hitler because it was hypocritical to do so? Really, are you mad?

Well, for a start, even if what was said is true, Britain was not at the time engaged in genocide or a quest for world domination. It could similarly be observed that the American Army was racially segregated but while that might be described as ironic, it was not Nazism.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I am having a problem signing in. I have changed my password and no problem with my mobile but cannot sign in on my tablet

Am I missing something

Could try resetting it again on the mobile?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

I never said that the British Empire of 1940 was as evil as Nazi Germany, just that it was intrinsically racist and undemocratic.

Your exact words were: "our hypocrisy fighting a war against tyranny with an undemocratic empire based on racial superiority, and well within living memory, is pretty stark too."

In what conceivable world is that not implying that the British empire was as evil as Nazi Germany? Should we not have opposed Hitler because it was hypocritical to do so? Really, are you mad?

Well, for a start, even if what was said is true, Britain was not at the time engaged in genocide or a quest for world domination. It could similarly be observed that the American Army was racially segregated but while that might be described as ironic, it was not Nazism.

The quoted person wasnt you it was the mad doctor of leicester

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I am having a problem signing in. I have changed my password and no problem with my mobile but cannot sign in on my tablet

Am I missing something

I have had that problem for some time, and am able to sign in only on Vanilla.
Have you attempted that ?

FPT

Charles - It's pretty futile looking for a specific date. There are so many definitions of superpower (e.g. how about 1913, when - IIRC - the UK was no longer the largest producer of iron & steel in the world).

It's more relevant to say that before WWI, the UK was a superpower. By WWII we weren't. At some point in the intervening period crossover happened.

Singapore wasn't particularly significant - it was an embarrassing military reversal. Suez just highlighted the realities of life.

First, hope you're recovering from jet lag, or alcohol poisoning or whatever ails ye!

Second, do think fall of Singapore was a HUGE psychological blow to British Empire, both at home AND beyond, esp. in Asia and Australia; Winston Churchill called it "the worst disaster and largest capitulation in British history."

"Fortress Singapore" was so over-hyped (including by people such as Churchill who should have known better) that when Japanese rolled across Malaya on bicycles and then captured the "fortress" without heavy lifting, was a tremendous shock. Esp. as feeble "defense" contrasted badly with the fight Americans and Filipinos (mostly the later) put up against the Japanese at Bataan (by "the battling bastards") and then Corrigedor.

After Singapore, was clear that time was running out for the British Empire - that India could NOT be held much longer, and that rest was going to go soon after. AND that former dominions such as Australia & Canada could no longer count on British for defense.

Interestingly, desire to NOT fall totally under American dominance is perhaps the strongest reason why Australia & Canada have maintained the British Crown as their own Head of State, not merely the Head of the Commonwealth.

Also note that about the best way to piss off just about any Canadian under 80, is to refer to their country as a "dominion" it REALLY sets them off.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

I never said that the British Empire of 1940 was as evil as Nazi Germany, just that it was intrinsically racist and undemocratic.

Your exact words were: "our hypocrisy fighting a war against tyranny with an undemocratic empire based on racial superiority, and well within living memory, is pretty stark too."

In what conceivable world is that not implying that the British empire was as evil as Nazi Germany? Should we not have opposed Hitler because it was hypocritical to do so? Really, are you mad?

You make the mistake of failing to differentiate level of crime. Clearly by 1940 Nazi Germany was far more oppressive than the British Empire.If you had asked a Tasmanian aborigine in 1840, or a Jamaican slave of 1740, they might not have seen a lot of difference.

Or are you denying that the British Empire of 1940 was undemocratic and based on racial superiority? (as of course are nearly all empires).

Nigelb said:

It was poorly phrased, but I think Foxy’s point might rather have been prompted by the though that having fought a war avowedly against tyranny, it made it simply impossible to maintain any kind of national determination to hang on to empire.

The British Empire was never synonymous with tyranny - rather the reverse in many cases, such as India (if you want to look for tyranny locally, look to the Mughals..). And certainly the British public at the time wouldn't have thought it was. The reason why the Empire collapsed after WWII was the fact that Britain was fatally weakened and the US - which had always hated the British Empire - was ascendant.

FrankBooth said:

In defence of Foxy it is now common to frame the 2nd world war as being about political ideals like democracy and rights.

I don't think there is any real need for us to get hung up on this. George Washington is a kind of demi-god in the US. There is no equivalent here.

There is, Winston Churchill

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I am having a problem signing in. I have changed my password and no problem with my mobile but cannot sign in on my tablet

Am I missing something

I've not been able to sign in on my laptop for some weeks. All OK on tablet and phone.

Yes me too, laptop signing in to PB seems to have gone bust

Foxy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

rpjs said:

Foxy said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

noneoftheabove said:

isam said:

IshmaelZ said:

Stereotomy said:

IshmaelZ said:

It's like four weeks ago when we thought there wouldn't be a statue left standing in the country by now.

Yes, who could possibly have foreseen that that was overblown, hysterical nonsense?

I didn't know because I had no yardstick to judge how seriously to take BLM. It turns out they are more "Yeah black lives are really really important, sure, but it's vital to keep a sense of perspective."

Maybe the people on the protests think it's job done now!

Wasnt on the protests but think its job done "for" now rather than job done. Those open to change have listened and understood, those resistant arent ready for change at the moment.

Yes. Frank reappraisal of Empire was never going to be the work of a single wet Wednesday afternoon.

The historians will have a lot of work to do rewriting their books now HYUFD has discovered that Britain was in fact the main Western superpower until near the end of the Cold War.

I said until the independence of India and I also said superpower not the only one

Britain stopped being a super-power the day Singapore fell. Or rather a few weeks before, when Japanese sunk HMS Prince of Wales & HMS Repulse.

OR you could stay the end was mid-WWII, when Britain became dependent upon US credit to stay afloat fiscally.

Yes, I think the fall of Singapore, with the similar surrender of Hong Kong and retreat from Burma represented Britain's collapse of Empire. Particularly so because the defeats were so abject a d also defeat was at the hands of a non European power.

Not only was this a collapse of the racial, and military "superiority" of the British Empire, but the subsequent rift with Australia turned it towards America. The Empire was toast after that.

Arguably the end was the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Britain had shown itself to be incapable of maintaining a hold on its oldest colony, which indeed was legally not a colony part of the metropolis itself. Yes, the UK was able to maintain the fiction, for a few years, that Ireland was still part of "His Majesty's dominions" but the reality was that British power was no longer invincible.

Yes, I accept that is true. While the Empire increased in size post WW1, the financial situation was dire. At that time though America was looking inward, and other European countries down on their luck too.

Britain as a world power ended after Singapore though. The writing was on the wall.

I was musing on this Tweet the other day:

https://twitter.com/arlenparsa/status/1168199200183586816?s=09

It is easy to spot the hypocrisy of the USA founding fathers, but our hypocrisy fighting a war against tyranny with an undemocratic empire based on racial superiority, and well within living memory, is pretty stark too.

Only if you pretend all sins are equal.

You are far too polite. @Foxy's post, implying that the British empire of 1940 was as evil as Nazi Germany, is completely, off-the-wall, raving bonkers insane: a curious - but not, alas, atypical - example of the lack of moral perspective which has come to infest British thought on the Left.

I never said that the British Empire of 1940 was as evil as Nazi Germany, just that it was intrinsically racist and undemocratic.

WW2 was not a fight against racism or for democracy, so there was no hypocrisy.

HYUFD said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I am having a problem signing in. I have changed my password and no problem with my mobile but cannot sign in on my tablet

Am I missing something

I've not been able to sign in on my laptop for some weeks. All OK on tablet and phone.

Yes me too, laptop signing in to PB seems to have gone bust

I'm using a laptop. I signed in on pb itself rather than Vanilla, if that makes a difference.

It is interesting to think, when discussing the passing of the era of US dominance in a few years (which I hope everyone here will still be in rude health and fine fettle for), which historical events we'll see as the milestones. I think possibly we've seen one in the foundering of the Arab Spring.

Luckyguy1983 said:

It is interesting to think, when discussing the passing of the era of US dominance in a few years (which I hope everyone here will still be in rude health and fine fettle for), which historical events we'll see as the milestones. I think possibly we've seen one in the foundering of the Arab Spring.

When Russia started partitioning Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine with impunity.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

FPT

Charles said:

It's pretty futile looking for a specific date. There are so many definitions of superpower (e.g. how about 1913, when - IIRC - the UK was no longer the largest producer of iron & steel in the world).

It's more relevant to say that before WWI, the UK was a superpower. By WWII we weren't. At some point in the intervening period crossover happened.

Singapore wasn't particularly significant - it was an embarrassing military reversal. Suez just highlighted the realities of life.

First, hope you're recovering from jet lag, or alcohol poisoning or whatever ails ye!

Second, do think fall of Singapore was a HUGE psychological blow to British Empire, both at home AND beyond, esp. in Asia and Australia; Winston Churchill called it "the worst disaster and largest capitulation in British history."

"Fortress Singapore" was so over-hyped (including by people such as Churchill who should have known better) that when Japanese rolled across Malaya on bicycles and then captured the "fortress" without heavy lifting, was a tremendous shock. Esp. as feeble "defense" contrasted badly with the fight Americans and Filipinos (mostly the later) put up against the Japanese at Bataan (by "the battling bastards") and then Corrigedor.

After Singapore, was clear that time was running out for the British Empire - that India could NOT be held much longer, and that rest was going to go soon after. AND that former dominions such as Australia & Canada could no longer count on British for defense.

Interestingly, desire to NOT fall totally under American dominance is perhaps the strongest reason why Australia & Canada have maintained the British Crown as their own Head of State, not merely the Head of the Commonwealth.

Also note that about the best way to piss off just about any Canadian under 80, is to refer to their country as a "dominion" it REALLY sets them off.

Was it the worst disaster since Dunkirk or the retreat from Corunna? Or perhaps Yorktown or the English Armada? Or do we need to go back to Hastings or the Battle of Watling Street?

Singapore: shit happens. Churchill: a master of the spoken tongue. Doesn't mean he was always (or even often) right.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Nigelb said:

It was poorly phrased, but I think Foxy’s point might rather have been prompted by the though that having fought a war avowedly against tyranny, it made it simply impossible to maintain any kind of national determination to hang on to empire.

The British Empire was never synonymous with tyranny - rather the reverse in many cases, such as India (if you want to look for tyranny locally, look to the Mughals..). And certainly the British public at the time wouldn't have thought it was. The reason why the Empire collapsed after WWII was the fact that Britain was fatally weakened and the US - which had always hated the British Empire - was ascendant.

I think our domination of India was likely doomed after the 1919 massacre in Amritsar. The subsequent rise of Indian nationalism was always going to be irresistible.

SandyRentool said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I am having a problem signing in. I have changed my password and no problem with my mobile but cannot sign in on my tablet

Am I missing something

I've not been able to sign in on my laptop for some weeks. All OK on tablet and phone.

Yes me too, laptop signing in to PB seems to have gone bust

I'm using a laptop. I signed in on pb itself rather than Vanilla, if that makes a difference.

Maybe it's a browser thing. I use Chrome.

I've just signed in on pb using Chrome. ETA have you tried the usual things like clearing pb cookies and browser cache?

Foxy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Nigelb said:

It was poorly phrased, but I think Foxy’s point might rather have been prompted by the though that having fought a war avowedly against tyranny, it made it simply impossible to maintain any kind of national determination to hang on to empire.

The British Empire was never synonymous with tyranny - rather the reverse in many cases, such as India (if you want to look for tyranny locally, look to the Mughals..). And certainly the British public at the time wouldn't have thought it was. The reason why the Empire collapsed after WWII was the fact that Britain was fatally weakened and the US - which had always hated the British Empire - was ascendant.

Certainly to many Britons, the Empire was not a synonym for tyranny. The people on the receiving end, whether Irish, Aboriginal, or Kikuyu clearly felt differently.

Not really. For example, Muslim Indians in Hindu-dominated areas looked to the British to protect them from tyranny, In any case, there was tyranny and tyranny. In the annals of tyranny, Nazism - which was your original comparison - was completely off the scale. Your lack of moral perspective is extraordinary.

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Foxy said:

I never said that the British Empire of 1940 was as evil as Nazi Germany, just that it was intrinsically racist and undemocratic.

Your exact words were: "our hypocrisy fighting a war against tyranny with an undemocratic empire based on racial superiority, and well within living memory, is pretty stark too."

In what conceivable world is that not implying that the British empire was as evil as Nazi Germany? Should we not have opposed Hitler because it was hypocritical to do so? Really, are you mad?

It was poorly phrased, but I think Foxy’s point might rather have been prompted by the though that having fought a war avowedly against tyranny, it made it simply impossible to maintain any kind of national determination to hang on to empire.

And to our credit, by and large we conceded that Empire was no longer viable, and the Empire would have to be freed. There were some bloody incidents along the way to liberation but the writing was on the wall

Agreed.
The contrast with France‘s behaviour in Vietnam and Algeria is great.

Philip_Thompson said:

Of all the candidates Tammy Duckworth seems to have by far the best "story" to tell - and would surely be a hard person to attack as unAmerican given her service. Not that it stopped them "swiftboating" John Kerry.

However I guess she is the "wrong type" of minority.

Wrong type for whom? Tammy Duckworth has long been third or fourth in the betting and is (or possibly was) on Biden's shortlist for background checks (that ended last week).

DecrepiterJohnL said:

SandyRentool said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

I am having a problem signing in. I have changed my password and no problem with my mobile but cannot sign in on my tablet

Am I missing something

I've not been able to sign in on my laptop for some weeks. All OK on tablet and phone.

Yes me too, laptop signing in to PB seems to have gone bust

I'm using a laptop. I signed in on pb itself rather than Vanilla, if that makes a difference.

Maybe it's a browser thing. I use Chrome.

I've just signed in on pb using Chrome. ETA have you tried the usual things like clearing pb cookies and browser cache?

Thanks. I'll have to have another play tomorrow.

Philip_Thompson said:

Of all the candidates Tammy Duckworth seems to have by far the best "story" to tell - and would surely be a hard person to attack as unAmerican given her service. Not that it stopped them "swiftboating" John Kerry.

However I guess she is the "wrong type" of minority.

Well. Tucker Carlson called her a coward the other day.
So obviously the wrong kind.

dixiedean said:

File under No Shit Sherlock.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/28/tourist-hotspots-hit-hardest-in-uk-by-covid-19-unemployment

Maybe the Spanish quarantine will help if more people now take staycations

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Of all the candidates Tammy Duckworth seems to have by far the best "story" to tell - and would surely be a hard person to attack as unAmerican given her service. Not that it stopped them "swiftboating" John Kerry.

However I guess she is the "wrong type" of minority.

Wrong type for whom? Tammy Duckworth has long been third or fourth in the betting and is (or possibly was) on Biden's shortlist for background checks (that ended last week).

I think if she was black and not Thai ethnicity she'd be first or second favourite.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It is interesting to think, when discussing the passing of the era of US dominance in a few years (which I hope everyone here will still be in rude health and fine fettle for), which historical events we'll see as the milestones. I think possibly we've seen one in the foundering of the Arab Spring.

The history is not written yet. I'm not so sure that we are going to see the passing of US dominance anytime soon. We might, but Japan came and went as a major alternative centre of economic power. So did Russia. Europe looks like being an also-ran, a useful counterbalance to US hegemony but always a junior player. As for China, before Xi Jinping they were definitely on the ascendant, but he is taking the country down a dark rabbit-hole, which won't end well for them. That might leave the US back as the overwhelmingly dominant power, if they can get their act together.

Big if!

But like they say, God looks out for drunks, little children - and the United States of America

Yes, it is a big 'if'. But who knows? Power shifts through wars and economic changes. Just a very few years ago the Arab states looked as though they were becoming major players on the world stage. Now, not so much. All the alternatives to US dominance have their own problems.

The Sky paper review is not good for those hoping a second wave is not on us

It seems right across Europe countries are seeing worrying evidence of increased covid and the common denominator appears to be young people gathering in large groups

For all those attacking HMG today, Boris has got this right and indeed Nicola is telling Scots not to book foreign holidays

Luckyguy1983 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It is interesting to think, when discussing the passing of the era of US dominance in a few years (which I hope everyone here will still be in rude health and fine fettle for), which historical events we'll see as the milestones. I think possibly we've seen one in the foundering of the Arab Spring.

The history is not written yet. I'm not so sure that we are going to see the passing of US dominance anytime soon. We might, but Japan came and went as a major alternative centre of economic power. So did Russia. Europe looks like being an also-ran, a useful counterbalance to US hegemony but always a junior player. As for China, before Xi Jinping they were definitely on the ascendant, but he is taking the country down a dark rabbit-hole, which won't end well for them. That might leave the US back as the overwhelmingly dominant power, if they can get their act together.

It doesn't take a successor to topple the US as hegemon for the passing of the era of US dominance - just the US to decline relatively, resulting in a multipolar world.

Yes, fair point, and that is likely.

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Nigelb said:

It was poorly phrased, but I think Foxy’s point might rather have been prompted by the though that having fought a war avowedly against tyranny, it made it simply impossible to maintain any kind of national determination to hang on to empire.

The British Empire was never synonymous with tyranny - rather the reverse in many cases, such as India (if you want to look for tyranny locally, look to the Mughals..). And certainly the British public at the time wouldn't have thought it was. The reason why the Empire collapsed after WWII was the fact that Britain was fatally weakened and the US - which had always hated the British Empire - was ascendant.

I think our domination of India was likely doomed after the 1919 massacre in Amritsar. The subsequent rise of Indian nationalism was always going to be irresistible.

I would place a claim for the Second Boer War as a turning point of Empire. Not only because of some spectacular defeats, but also the public exposure of our cruelty in the treatment of the Boer families in the concentration camps. It was a phyrric victory, and within a decade South Africa was effectively independent.

Interesting to note that Britain LOST the 1st Anglo-Boer War, which featured British redcoats being decimated by Afrikaaner farmers. Gladstone's govt decided to cut its loses and let Orange Free State & Transvaal have back their independence. However, the humiliation was a factor - though less important than gold & geopolitics - why "Pushful Joe" Chamberlain conspired with Cecil Rhodes to overthrow & re-annex the two Boer republics. First via the fiasco of the Jameson Raid, then the real deal, the 2nd Anglo-Boer War.

As you say, the Brits quickly concluded that they needed to come to an agreement with the Afrikaaners (screwing the non-Whites in the process) and none to soon. Because without the active cooperation of majority Boer faction led by Louis Botha and Jan Christian Smuts, British hold on Cape of Good Hope would have been a tad problematic - and you could forget about substantial SA contribution to British war effort in Southwest Africa (Namibia), East Africa (Kenya & Tanzania) and on Western Front.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The Sky paper review is not good for those hoping a second wave is not on us

It seems right across Europe countries are seeing worrying evidence of increased covid and the common denominator appears to be young people gathering in large groups

For all those attacking HMG today, Boris has got this right and indeed Nicola is telling Scots not to book foreign holidays

One third of worldwide infections have occurred this month.
The plague is accelerating. Just going through a quiet spell in Europe I fear.

Any chance of a real curveball pick like Oprah Winfrey?

dixiedean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The Sky paper review is not good for those hoping a second wave is not on us

It seems right across Europe countries are seeing worrying evidence of increased covid and the common denominator appears to be young people gathering in large groups

For all those attacking HMG today, Boris has got this right and indeed Nicola is telling Scots not to book foreign holidays

One third of worldwide infections have occurred this month.
The plague is accelerating. Just going through a quiet spell in Europe I fear.

I think the most likely source of imported infection will now be from the subcontinent. Indeed that may already be part of the explanation for the current geography of UK coronavirus.

dixiedean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The Sky paper review is not good for those hoping a second wave is not on us

It seems right across Europe countries are seeing worrying evidence of increased covid and the common denominator appears to be young people gathering in large groups

For all those attacking HMG today, Boris has got this right and indeed Nicola is telling Scots not to book foreign holidays

One third of worldwide infections have occurred this month.
The plague is accelerating. Just going through a quiet spell in Europe I fear.

Maybe even beginning to not be that quiet.

Should put 14 day quarantine back in for everyone, absolutely everyone who comes in from abroad. If you want a holiday go to a British tourist resort - they can use the business.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Nigelb said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Nigelb said:

It was poorly phrased, but I think Foxy’s point might rather have been prompted by the though that having fought a war avowedly against tyranny, it made it simply impossible to maintain any kind of national determination to hang on to empire.

The British Empire was never synonymous with tyranny - rather the reverse in many cases, such as India (if you want to look for tyranny locally, look to the Mughals..). And certainly the British public at the time wouldn't have thought it was. The reason why the Empire collapsed after WWII was the fact that Britain was fatally weakened and the US - which had always hated the British Empire - was ascendant.

I think our domination of India was likely doomed after the 1919 massacre in Amritsar. The subsequent rise of Indian nationalism was always going to be irresistible.

I would place a claim for the Second Boer War as a turning point of Empire. Not only because of some spectacular defeats, but also the public exposure of our cruelty in the treatment of the Boer families in the concentration camps. It was a phyrric victory, and within a decade South Africa was effectively independent.

Perhaps; after all, Gandhi, who thought himself first and foremost British, was radicalised by his experiences in South Africa.
The cognitive dissonance of a democracy maintaining an empire was unsustainable.

Empire are inherently evil. Commonwealths, on other hand, have a natural capacity (however compromised at any one time) for good.

Interesting that in South Africa, the true role of the British turned out to be the defense of the Blacks. Thus earning the loyalty of non-White South Africans from Boer War forward.

One problem was proclivity of HM Govt in selling out Africans in favor of Afrikaaner, often with acquiescence if not urging of Anglo South Africans.

I am not sure that either the Xhosa or Zulu wars are supportive of the British being the defenders of Black South Africans.

South Africa is a beautiful and tragic country, but part of the fascination is that their tourist slogan "a world in one country" is true in so many ways. The history of the place really is the world in miniature.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It is interesting to think, when discussing the passing of the era of US dominance in a few years (which I hope everyone here will still be in rude health and fine fettle for), which historical events we'll see as the milestones. I think possibly we've seen one in the foundering of the Arab Spring.

The history is not written yet. I'm not so sure that we are going to see the passing of US dominance anytime soon. We might, but Japan came and went as a major alternative centre of economic power. So did Russia. Europe looks like being an also-ran, a useful counterbalance to US hegemony but always a junior player. As for China, before Xi Jinping they were definitely on the ascendant, but he is taking the country down a dark rabbit-hole, which won't end well for them. That might leave the US back as the overwhelmingly dominant power, if they can get their act together.

It doesn't take a successor to topple the US as hegemon for the passing of the era of US dominance - just the US to decline relatively, resulting in a multipolar world.

Yes, fair point, and that is likely.

It's a bit like the British Empire - we think of it as the previous 'USA', but it wasn't. In that era you had the USA, the Russian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, France, latterly Germany, and a host of others who were comparable in power. It's relatively unusual in history to have a single power with total dominance as we've seen post-Cold war with the US.

As I mentioned in the last thread, we never called ourselves a superpower, just one of the strongest, perhaps the strongest of the great powers.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

brokenwheel said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Of all the candidates Tammy Duckworth seems to have by far the best "story" to tell - and would surely be a hard person to attack as unAmerican given her service. Not that it stopped them "swiftboating" John Kerry.

However I guess she is the "wrong type" of minority.

Wrong type for whom? Tammy Duckworth has long been third or fourth in the betting and is (or possibly was) on Biden's shortlist for background checks (that ended last week).

It would go down like a lead balloon with the black community after all the virtue signalling that the VP should be black.

But tbh that's not the biggest issue with Tammy, as a personality I suspect she'll be very marmite-y.

Among Black chattering classes, maybe. Among Black voters in general, not as big a deal as many seem to think.

Note just how well Kamala Harris & Cory Booker did with African American voters in South Carolina & elsewhere. Or rather, did NOT.

One reason for touting Harris, Rice, Bass, etc is to show that Black women WERE in strong contention, regardless of final choice.

My point is this: Biden needs a Black running mate as much as Bill Clinton did, in order to turn out Black voters. That is, he don't.

He’ll chose who he prefers to have as his VP for four years, I think. Subject to him (or his advisors) thinking them credible on the campaign trail.

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The Sky paper review is not good for those hoping a second wave is not on us

It seems right across Europe countries are seeing worrying evidence of increased covid and the common denominator appears to be young people gathering in large groups

For all those attacking HMG today, Boris has got this right and indeed Nicola is telling Scots not to book foreign holidays

One third of worldwide infections have occurred this month.
The plague is accelerating. Just going through a quiet spell in Europe I fear.

Maybe even beginning to not be that quiet.

Should put 14 day quarantine back in for everyone, absolutely everyone who comes in from abroad. If you want a holiday go to a British tourist resort - they can use the business.

Philip_Thompson said:

dixiedean said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The Sky paper review is not good for those hoping a second wave is not on us

It seems right across Europe countries are seeing worrying evidence of increased covid and the common denominator appears to be young people gathering in large groups

For all those attacking HMG today, Boris has got this right and indeed Nicola is telling Scots not to book foreign holidays

One third of worldwide infections have occurred this month.
The plague is accelerating. Just going through a quiet spell in Europe I fear.

Maybe even beginning to not be that quiet.

Should put 14 day quarantine back in for everyone, absolutely everyone who comes in from abroad. If you want a holiday go to a British tourist resort - they can use the business.

I wonder if the government ought to have words with its cheerleaders in the Press?
Headlines about Boris Saves Summer! Have clearly given folk the OK to book a holiday without any consideration of the potential drawbacks or consequences.
Sensible people will do their own risk assessment.
Including can I afford to quarantine? And what if the country locks down?
My friend is still in Cyprus having originally gone for 2 weeks in March.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The Sky paper review is not good for those hoping a second wave is not on us

It seems right across Europe countries are seeing worrying evidence of increased covid and the common denominator appears to be young people gathering in large groups

For all those attacking HMG today, Boris has got this right and indeed Nicola is telling Scots not to book foreign holidays

Cases have been going up for quite a while, but not deaths.

Charles said:

Nigelb said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It is interesting to think, when discussing the passing of the era of US dominance in a few years (which I hope everyone here will still be in rude health and fine fettle for), which historical events we'll see as the milestones. I think possibly we've seen one in the foundering of the Arab Spring.

The history is not written yet. I'm not so sure that we are going to see the passing of US dominance anytime soon. We might, but Japan came and went as a major alternative centre of economic power. So did Russia. Europe looks like being an also-ran, a useful counterbalance to US hegemony but always a junior player. As for China, before Xi Jinping they were definitely on the ascendant, but he is taking the country down a dark rabbit-hole, which won't end well for them. That might leave the US back as the overwhelmingly dominant power, if they can get their act together.

It doesn't take a successor to topple the US as hegemon for the passing of the era of US dominance - just the US to decline relatively, resulting in a multipolar world.

Yes, fair point, and that is likely.

It's a bit like the British Empire - we think of it as the previous 'USA', but it wasn't. In that era you had the USA, the Russian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, France, latterly Germany, and a host of others who were comparable in power. It's relatively unusual in history to have a single power with total dominance as we've seen post-Cold war with the US.

As I mentioned in the last thread, we never called ourselves a superpower, just one of the strongest, perhaps the strongest of the great powers.

Grade inflation...

Not really.
Superpowers have global reach and power, and there can never be more than a couple of them at one time; a great power like Germany never qualified - but was able to fight us on equal terms in two world wars.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

It is interesting to think, when discussing the passing of the era of US dominance in a few years (which I hope everyone here will still be in rude health and fine fettle for), which historical events we'll see as the milestones. I think possibly we've seen one in the foundering of the Arab Spring.

The history is not written yet. I'm not so sure that we are going to see the passing of US dominance anytime soon. We might, but Japan came and went as a major alternative centre of economic power. So did Russia. Europe looks like being an also-ran, a useful counterbalance to US hegemony but always a junior player. As for China, before Xi Jinping they were definitely on the ascendant, but he is taking the country down a dark rabbit-hole, which won't end well for them. That might leave the US back as the overwhelmingly dominant power, if they can get their act together.

Big if!

But like they say, God looks out for drunks, little children - and the United States of America

Yes, it is a big 'if'. But who knows? Power shifts through wars and economic changes. Just a very few years ago the Arab states looked as though they were becoming major players on the world stage. Now, not so much. All the alternatives to US dominance have their own problems.

E Pluribus Unum is still our greatest strength. The fact that the United States is a nation comprised of MANY nations. We are ALL daughters and sons of immigrants (even Native American's hiked in from Siberia), and most grandchildren of more than one nationality / ethnicity / tribe.

As Bill Murray famously (and correctly) said in movie "Stripes" - "We Americans! . . . That means our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world!"

This is also potentially America’s greatest weakness. Its self-image depends on seeing itself as the city on the hill. If it becomes just a normal country, internal unity will start to become more of a problem again.

Foxy said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Nigelb said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Nigelb said:

It was poorly phrased, but I think Foxy’s point might rather have been prompted by the though that having fought a war avowedly against tyranny, it made it simply impossible to maintain any kind of national determination to hang on to empire.

The British Empire was never synonymous with tyranny - rather the reverse in many cases, such as India (if you want to look for tyranny locally, look to the Mughals..). And certainly the British public at the time wouldn't have thought it was. The reason why the Empire collapsed after WWII was the fact that Britain was fatally weakened and the US - which had always hated the British Empire - was ascendant.

I think our domination of India was likely doomed after the 1919 massacre in Amritsar. The subsequent rise of Indian nationalism was always going to be irresistible.

I would place a claim for the Second Boer War as a turning point of Empire. Not only because of some spectacular defeats, but also the public exposure of our cruelty in the treatment of the Boer families in the concentration camps. It was a phyrric victory, and within a decade South Africa was effectively independent.

Perhaps; after all, Gandhi, who thought himself first and foremost British, was radicalised by his experiences in South Africa.
The cognitive dissonance of a democracy maintaining an empire was unsustainable.

Empire are inherently evil. Commonwealths, on other hand, have a natural capacity (however compromised at any one time) for good.

Interesting that in South Africa, the true role of the British turned out to be the defense of the Blacks. Thus earning the loyalty of non-White South Africans from Boer War forward.

One problem was proclivity of HM Govt in selling out Africans in favor of Afrikaaner, often with acquiescence if not urging of Anglo South Africans.

I am not sure that either the Xhosa or Zulu wars are supportive of the British being the defenders of Black South Africans.

South Africa is a beautiful and tragic country, but part of the fascination is that their tourist slogan "a world in one country" is true in so many ways. The history of the place really is the world in miniature.

Within a generation of those wars, Xhosa & Zulu were most definitely pro-Brit viz-a-viz Afrikaners.

Agree truly a fascinating country! Re: Africans & Afrikaners, interesting that Mandela achieved breakthrough by learning Afrikaans, absorbing large elements of Afrikaner culture & identity (such as rugby) and then dealing with their leaders face to face, eye to eye, man to man.

Pagan2 said:

Foxy said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Nigelb said:

It was poorly phrased, but I think Foxy’s point might rather have been prompted by the though that having fought a war avowedly against tyranny, it made it simply impossible to maintain any kind of national determination to hang on to empire.

The British Empire was never synonymous with tyranny - rather the reverse in many cases, such as India (if you want to look for tyranny locally, look to the Mughals..). And certainly the British public at the time wouldn't have thought it was. The reason why the Empire collapsed after WWII was the fact that Britain was fatally weakened and the US - which had always hated the British Empire - was ascendant.

Certainly to many Britons, the Empire was not a synonym for tyranny. The people on the receiving end, whether Irish, Aboriginal, or Kikuyu clearly felt differently.

Tyranny though is however in the eye of the beholder, I am sure that many of the snp inclined would call england tyrannical. The empire certainly had hotspots of tyranny but on the whole it certainly wasn't as authoritarian and racist as the third reich

I never said it was, just pointed out the similarities of the slaveholding founding fathers of the USA to later British Imperialists. The paradox of eloquent writings on freedom, while casually denying it to others, by force of might.

brokenwheel said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

brokenwheel said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Of all the candidates Tammy Duckworth seems to have by far the best "story" to tell - and would surely be a hard person to attack as unAmerican given her service. Not that it stopped them "swiftboating" John Kerry.

However I guess she is the "wrong type" of minority.

Wrong type for whom? Tammy Duckworth has long been third or fourth in the betting and is (or possibly was) on Biden's shortlist for background checks (that ended last week).

It would go down like a lead balloon with the black community after all the virtue signalling that the VP should be black.

But tbh that's not the biggest issue with Tammy, as a personality I suspect she'll be very marmite-y.

Among Black chattering classes, maybe. Among Black voters in general, not as big a deal as many seem to think.

Note just how well Kamala Harris & Cory Booker did with African American voters in South Carolina & elsewhere. Or rather, did NOT.

One reason for touting Harris, Rice, Bass, etc is to show that Black women WERE in strong contention, regardless of final choice.

My point is this: Biden needs a Black running mate as much as Bill Clinton did, in order to turn out Black voters. That is, he don't.

The Black chattering classes are the Black voters.

Harris and Booker were already long out of it by South Carolina, and of course as you know neither is that popular in the Black community for various reasons anyway.

I don't know, this seems different. After raising the prospects of selecting a Black running mate, especially after the last few months, it would reinforce all the reservations they have about the Democrats.

IF White chattering classes and White voters are NOT identical, then why is that also not true of Black voters. Unless you are citing actual polling or somesuch?

And WHY were Harris & Booker out of it pre-SC? Was it because they could NOT make headway versus Uncle Joe, the man who stood by Obama through thick & thin?

As for expectations, that has been mostly expectations of NYT op-ed writers, bloggers, etc - mostly liberal White people.