US Politics

Stirlingsays said:
Diverse ethnic groups and languages? What Welsh? That's a performative language...unlike say Spanish......When people think of Empire they are principally thinking of power.

The British empire ended shortly after WW2 and the Americans took over.....Now there's a lot that can be said about that and I certainly have commented upon the wisdom of the world wars for Great Britain....but that's what people understand by empire.


So this hegemony over the Irish you speak of.....Is that the same hegemony that saw it supporting Hitler in the second world war?

I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Could you give me examples of the Irish state doing what the British parliament tell it to do?


Well, you got that one right.
Click to expand...
How about the 4 million Muslims who speak Arabic? Or the Indians who speak Punjabi?

Sorry, you meet the actual definition of an Empire.

I think we would agree that GB selfishly risked its power to solve a continental problem twice, and it expedited the global loss of power and influence that you had previously enjoyed. It was going to decrease either way, but the wars super charged it. I would argue that it was one of the most selfless acts a nation has ever done and I would also argue that only nations whose ethics have a direct link to the Magna Carta would think that it was the right thing to do and most of the rest of the world thinks you were dumb for doing it.

Yes, it would include the 130,000 Irish who fought on your team during WWII.

How about the Common Travel Area? Economic investment? Joint funding for regional transport and projects? Defense Agreements where you defend them and take responsibility for watching things like Russian shadow fleet operations in their territorial waters? Your relationship with them is very similar to the US relationship with Canada.
 
Mark B said:
How about the 4 million Muslims who speak Arabic? Or the Indians who speak Punjabi?

Sorry, you meet the actual definition of an Empire.

I think we would agree that GB selfishly risked its power to solve a continental problem twice, and it expedited the global loss of power and influence that you had previously enjoyed. It was going to decrease either way, but the wars super charged it. I would argue that it was one of the most selfless acts a nation has ever done and I would also argue that only nations whose ethics have a direct link to the Magna Carta would think that it was the right thing to do and most of the rest of the world thinks you were dumb for doing it.

Yes, it would include the 130,000 Irish who fought on your team during WWII.

How about the Common Travel Area? Economic investment? Joint funding for regional transport and projects? Defense Agreements where you defend them and take responsibility for watching things like Russian shadow fleet operations in their territorial waters? Your relationship with them is very similar to the US relationship with Canada.
Click to expand...
About half from the Republic and an unknown (but I suspect small) number fought for the other side.

We had already ticked most of the boxes for empire end by the time the 2 wars hastened our demise. Stirling and others aside, I suspect most Brits look back with some pride at what we did, at least as far as WWII is concerned. I think "dumb" is an ill thought out criticism. Most would do it again given the nature of the enemy we would have acquired as, initially, our adjacent neighbour and, ultimately, our master.
 
silvertop said:
About half from the Republic and an unknown (but I suspect small) number fought for the other side.

We had already ticked most of the boxes for empire end by the time the 2 wars hastened our demise. Stirling and others aside, I suspect most Brits look back with some pride at what we did, at least as far as WWII is concerned. I think "dumb" is an ill thought out criticism. Most would do it again given the nature of the enemy we would have acquired as, initially, our adjacent neighbour and, ultimately, our master.
Click to expand...
From my research, the rough estimate that comes up is that about 5,000 Irish would end up fighting for the Germans. They primarily were recruiting from POW camps.

I would love for you to be right about the people of today but the polling doesn't seem to agree with you. A YouGov poll determined that only 6 per cent of people in the UK would volunteer to fight for their country in the event of an imminent invasion. The polling was very generational as the younger generations were adamant about not fighting (or finding excuses not to fight) while the older generations are more supportive. Of demographics may play a huge role in this. Mixed-race and Asian populations represent a much larger share of individuals under 25 than over 60. Over 60% of people with mixed ethnic backgrounds in England and Wales are under the age of 25. These younger generations like what they UK offers them, they just don't want to have to do anything for it.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
Americans are funny about id - I couldn't buy cigarettes without it. I was 64 at the time and having to prove you're over 21 to someone who's 24 is quite irritating.
Click to expand...
It is the joy of the 10th Amendment, states get to pick and choose what rules to make and follow if the national government doesn't reserve the right to it.

It becomes a lot of fun when fire arms are involved as the states in the south and middle of the country have reciprocity and if I had ever been caught with my weapons visiting my parents I would have faced a mandatory of 18 months in jail.

By and large the northeast and west coast are more restrictive and try to keep people "safe" while the south and particularly Florida believes in Darwin and that if you do something stupid and kill yourself then deserved to be removed from the gene pool.
 
Mark B said:
From my research, the rough estimate that comes up is that about 5,000 Irish would end up fighting for the Germans. They primarily were recruiting from POW camps.

I would love for you to be right about the people of today but the polling doesn't seem to agree with you. A YouGov poll determined that only 6 per cent of people in the UK would volunteer to fight for their country in the event of an imminent invasion. The polling was very generational as the younger generations were adamant about not fighting (or finding excuses not to fight) while the older generations are more supportive. Of demographics may play a huge role in this. Mixed-race and Asian populations represent a much larger share of individuals under 25 than over 60. Over 60% of people with mixed ethnic backgrounds in England and Wales are under the age of 25. These younger generations like what they UK offers them, they just don't want to have to do anything for it.
Click to expand...
Watch Yes Minister to see how pollsters skewer opinions! And did they only poll 18 - 30 year old's?

That said, we are definitely a less resilient people than in the 1930s but mark this point. Chamberlain and Halifax were very popular. WWI followed by Spanish flu followed by the depression were a sequence of genuinely traumatic experiences for the UK. WWI is still viewed by many as a worse experience for the nation than WWII. We lost a whole lot more of that generation. When Chamberlain waived his piece of paper, the nation genuinely cheered. When Halifax proposed appeasement he had huge support. Yet when the call went, the numbers appeared. There was no draft dodging on any meaningful scale.

On the other side of that coin, our armed forces (save the Marines and the Paras) are struggling to recruit. It is not seen as a sensible career; and that is with 1 million of our youth not in any job, training or academics.

On balance, if this country were threatened by imminent invasion, I think a whole lot more than 6% of eligible people would turn up.
 
silvertop said:
Watch Yes Minister to see how pollsters skewer opinions! And did they only poll 18 - 30 year old's?

That said, we are definitely a less resilient people than in the 1930s but mark this point. Chamberlain and Halifax were very popular. WWI followed by Spanish flu followed by the depression were a sequence of genuinely traumatic experiences for the UK. WWI is still viewed by many as a worse experience for the nation than WWII. We lost a whole lot more of that generation. When Chamberlain waived his piece of paper, the nation genuinely cheered. When Halifax proposed appeasement he had huge support. Yet when the call went, the numbers appeared. There was no draft dodging on any meaningful scale.

On the other side of that coin, our armed forces (save the Marines and the Paras) are struggling to recruit. It is not seen as a sensible career; and that is with 1 million of our youth not in any job, training or academics.

On balance, if this country were threatened by imminent invasion, I think a whole lot more than 6% of eligible people would turn up.
Click to expand...
Agreed we have not faced real danger in this country since the end of WW2.

What we have faced in the last 70 years are wars in various parts of the Empire and the Middle East plus proxy wars e.g. Ukraine. Not surprisingly many former servicemen will no doubt have told their families it wasn't worth it.

I agree that if we faced a real threat then many would fight, as long as they can get their social media likes, Lattes and streaming. 😀
 
silvertop said:
Watch Yes Minister to see how pollsters skewer opinions! And did they only poll 18 - 30 year old's?

That said, we are definitely a less resilient people than in the 1930s but mark this point. Chamberlain and Halifax were very popular. WWI followed by Spanish flu followed by the depression were a sequence of genuinely traumatic experiences for the UK. WWI is still viewed by many as a worse experience for the nation than WWII. We lost a whole lot more of that generation. When Chamberlain waived his piece of paper, the nation genuinely cheered. When Halifax proposed appeasement he had huge support. Yet when the call went, the numbers appeared. There was no draft dodging on any meaningful scale.

On the other side of that coin, our armed forces (save the Marines and the Paras) are struggling to recruit. It is not seen as a sensible career; and that is with 1 million of our youth not in any job, training or academics.

On balance, if this country were threatened by imminent invasion, I think a whole lot more than 6% of eligible people would turn up.
Click to expand...

Halifax was right.

Churchill was incredibly lucky.

Hitler had all the cards and gambled on Russia when there was no need.....If he had wanted control of western Europe he could have had it.

But it was all about the communists.
 
silvertop said:
Watch Yes Minister to see how pollsters skewer opinions! And did they only poll 18 - 30 year old's?

That said, we are definitely a less resilient people than in the 1930s but mark this point. Chamberlain and Halifax were very popular. WWI followed by Spanish flu followed by the depression were a sequence of genuinely traumatic experiences for the UK. WWI is still viewed by many as a worse experience for the nation than WWII. We lost a whole lot more of that generation. When Chamberlain waived his piece of paper, the nation genuinely cheered. When Halifax proposed appeasement he had huge support. Yet when the call went, the numbers appeared. There was no draft dodging on any meaningful scale.

On the other side of that coin, our armed forces (save the Marines and the Paras) are struggling to recruit. It is not seen as a sensible career; and that is with 1 million of our youth not in any job, training or academics.

On balance, if this country were threatened by imminent invasion, I think a whole lot more than 6% of eligible people would turn up.
Click to expand...
A PhD friend whose degree is in analytics spend hours showing me how he could manipulate polling data to say anything that he wanted it to. Another friend who worked in the field is fond of saying, "tell me what you want the data to say and I'll make it say that."

I think the majority of the western world is less resilient today, technology makes us weak and soft. About the only people still hard are those with limited technology or who live in harsh circumstances like North Korea.

I think the lack of willingness to serve comes down to a decreased national pride that has been force feed down your throats for decades. Political elites decided that you needed to feel guilty for every act hundreds of years ago under the Union Jack while ignoring all of the greatness that it brought the world as well. I'm convinced at this point that there are more Americans of English ancestry who are proud of the history then there are people currently in England who are proud of the same history.

It also doesn't help that your military has been underfunded for decades but the governments still want them to be actively deployed everywhere.

I would agree that more then 6% would turn up, I also think that the amount of currently illegally weaponry that would magically find its way into the country would ensure that everyone who wanted one would have their choice of what to use.
 
Mark B said:
A PhD friend whose degree is in analytics spend hours showing me how he could manipulate polling data to say anything that he wanted it to. Another friend who worked in the field is fond of saying, "tell me what you want the data to say and I'll make it say that."

I think the majority of the western world is less resilient today, technology makes us weak and soft. About the only people still hard are those with limited technology or who live in harsh circumstances like North Korea.

I think the lack of willingness to serve comes down to a decreased national pride that has been force feed down your throats for decades. Political elites decided that you needed to feel guilty for every act hundreds of years ago under the Union Jack while ignoring all of the greatness that it brought the world as well. I'm convinced at this point that there are more Americans of English ancestry who are proud of the history then there are people currently in England who are proud of the same history.

It also doesn't help that your military has been underfunded for decades but the governments still want them to be actively deployed everywhere.

I would agree that more then 6% would turn up, I also think that the amount of currently illegally weaponry that would magically find its way into the country would ensure that everyone who wanted one would have their choice of what to use.
Click to expand...
Generally, I would disagree with this. However, my daughter is studying history and English lit for her A-levels (high school diploma??). Her syllabus (that used to be about learning the history and literature of the nation she lives in) concentrates largely on Jamaican history and literature.

You can bet the general theme is slavery, evil colonials etc.

You could argue that we have such a small literature pool to chose from and a very limited history...
 
silvertop said:
Generally, I would disagree with this. However, my daughter is studying history and English lit for her A-levels (high school diploma??). Her syllabus (that used to be about learning the history and literature of the nation she lives in) concentrates largely on Jamaican history and literature.

You can bet the general theme is slavery, evil colonials etc.

You could argue that we have such a small literature pool to chose from and a very limited history...
Click to expand...
Well, if you argued that, you would be completely wrong of course!
 
silvertop said:
Generally, I would disagree with this. However, my daughter is studying history and English lit for her A-levels (high school diploma??). Her syllabus (that used to be about learning the history and literature of the nation she lives in) concentrates largely on Jamaican history and literature.

You can bet the general theme is slavery, evil colonials etc.

You could argue that we have such a small literature pool to chose from and a very limited history...
Click to expand...
Why would you want her to learn how her ancestors stopped the Atlantic slave trade when she can learn pretend facts about Jamaica instead of how maintains one of the higher homicide and violent crime rates in the Western Hemisphere? Or how its economy fell apart at the end of British Rule because they were too stupid and corrupt to keep it functioning. But reggae, that is the important stuff.

We have the same issue as the number of African American authors is massively overinflated compared to their actual historical significance. Never before have so few claimed so much credit despite doing so little.

To be fair, since you created the English language and Twilight was written in English, you can be blamed for that. Compared to Twilight, maybe reading The Children of Sisyphus isn't a bad choice?
 
silvertop said:
Generally, I would disagree with this. However, my daughter is studying history and English lit for her A-levels (high school diploma??). Her syllabus (that used to be about learning the history and literature of the nation she lives in) concentrates largely on Jamaican history and literature.

You can bet the general theme is slavery, evil colonials etc.

You could argue that we have such a small literature pool to chose from and a very limited history...
Click to expand...

The country is fecked.
 
Unless the GOP get rid of Trump asap they are going to get rinsed in the mid-terms.

Epstein, this war and the split within his own base would gift 2028 to the Democrats, not because anyone likes them but purely on Trump having fecked up this second term so badly.....Kind of the same way Starmer was elected.....by default because the Tories had failed so badly.

If both houses are lost in a landslide, then all the DEI, tranny crap, alphabet and anti white crap that the Democrats will mostly keep a lid on during the election campaign but were pushing during the Biden years will come back twice as strong and the borders will be straight back open to god knows how many more millions.
 
Stirlingsays said:
Unless the GOP get rid of Trump asap they are going to get rinsed in the mid-terms.

Epstein, this war and the split within his own base would gift 2028 to the Democrats, not because anyone likes them but purely on Trump having fecked up this second term so badly.....Kind of the same way Starmer was elected.....by default because the Tories had failed so badly.

If both houses are lost in a landslide, then all the DEI, tranny crap, alphabet and anti white crap that the Democrats will mostly keep a lid on during the election campaign but were pushing during the Biden years will come back twice as strong and the borders will be straight back open to god knows how many more millions.
Click to expand...

I don't think Trump will finish his full term. I can imagine Vance taking over at the end of the year or next year to give himself sometime before an election campaign. But who knows...Trump does love the spotlight so he may stay.

I think traditionally whoever is in power usually looses the midterms anyway? So perhaps the Republicans arnt too bothered about it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top