Brexit Encore

[Alan Klein]

I would not call the loss of the UK desintegration. Member-states have the 'freedom' not to take part.
It is different with the states in the US. I cannot imagine Hawaii having the choice to go independent from the rest of the US.

The UK is the first.  Other nations will follow unless the EU changes. 

When US territories become a state, they are to be part of the American nation and agree not to break off.  But to compare Hawaii Texas or any of American State to Germany and France, let's say, is not the same.  Americans are American whether they're from Texas, Hawaii or any other state.  Germans are not Frenchmen.  Neither wants the other to tell them how to, live politically.  Each defends there own borders and want their own politicians running things not some gnome in Brussels.  Why do they put up with it?  There are more important things than money, self-rule being one of them. 

[kers]

The UK is the first.  Other nations will follow unless the EU changes. 

When US territories become a state, they are to be part of the American nation and agree not to break off.  But to compare Hawaii Texas or any of American State to Germany and France, let's say, is not the same.  Americans are American whether they're from Texas, Hawaii or any other state.  Germans are not Frenchmen.  Neither wants the other to tell them how to, live politically.  Each defends there own borders and want their own politicians running things not some gnome in Brussels.  Why do they put up with it?  There are more important things than money, self-rule being one of them.

It seems to me there are at least already two nations in the US; democrates and republicans. And there is a common disbelieve in facts and institutions.
Demonstrators look like armed soldiers demanding a kind of freedom that looks more like anarchy than any faith in the constitution and the democratically chosen government.
Their fate in the constitution only covers the part were everybody is permitted a gun.

[Alan Klein]

It seems to me there are at least already two nations in the US; democrates and republicans. And there is a common disbelieve in facts and institutions.
Demonstrators look like armed soldiers demanding a kind of freedom that looks more like anarchy than any faith in the constitution and the democratically chosen government.
Their fate in the constitution only covers the part were everybody is permitted a gun.

Democrat and Republican are two parties in the US just like you have political parties in The Netherlands.  Demonstrators are carrying out their Constitutional rights to protest and of free speech.  The Constitution allows free assembly to make your political views known.  It also allows the right to bear arms which is publicly allowed under the laws of their state.  It's not anarchy despite what you think.  They're not rioting, shooting, or violating local laws or ordinances or the constitution of their state or the US Constitution.  You just don't understand America or how America works.  Americans are mainly anti government.  At least until it comes to getting free stuff from the government.  Then they're like the socialists in Europe and just as greedy. Rich or poor they've got their hands out for government giveaways.   

[John Camp]

Democrat and Republican are two parties in the US just like you have political parties in The Netherlands.  Demonstrators are carrying out their Constitutional rights to protest and of free speech.  The Constitution allows free assembly to make your political views known.  It also allows the right to bear arms which is publicly allowed under the laws of their state.  It's not anarchy despite what you think.  They're not rioting, shooting, or violating local laws or ordinances or the constitution of their state or the US Constitution.  You just don't understand America or how America works.  Americans are mainly anti government.  At least until it comes to getting free stuff from the government.  Then they're like the socialists in Europe and just as greedy. Rich or poor they've got their hands out for government giveaways.   

C'mon, Alan, but this is simply horseshit. Those people with guns aren't at political rallies to demonstrate their right to bear arms; they're there to intimidate, pure and simple. We have a New Mexico politican/religious freak (Otero County Commissioner, gun guy and Cowboys for Trump founder Cory Griffin) who recently made a speech that said he's come around to the view that the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat. And he carries a gun. And he goes to campaign meetings. How are you supposed to be a Democrat and interpret a loaded AR15 in the hands of somebody like that? And I'm an American and an Army veteran and frankly, after a lot of years of covering politics from city halls to four national conventions, as well as cops and school board, I think I know how America works as well as you do. You really think somebody needs a gun to protest and have freedom of speech? It's obvious how stupid this thought is, when you actually look at the people who do this, a bunch of overweight clowns in camo who have this hero fantasy going on. I mean, Jesus, it gives me a headache just to think about.

[Rob C]

C'mon, Alan, but this is simply horseshit. Those people with guns aren't at political rallies to demonstrate their right to bear arms; they're there to intimidate, pure and simple. We have a New Mexico politican/religious freak (Otero County Commissioner, gun guy and Cowboys for Trump founder Cory Griffin) who recently made a speech that said he's come around to the view that the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat. And he carries a gun. And he goes to campaign meetings. How are you supposed to be a Democrat and interpret a loaded AR15 in the hands of somebody like that? And I'm an American and an Army veteran and frankly, after a lot of years of covering politics from city halls to four national conventions, as well as cops and school board, I think I know how America works as well as you do. You really think somebody needs a gun to protest and have freedom of speech? It's obvious how stupid this thought is, when you actually look at the people who do this, a bunch of overweight clowns in camo who have this hero fantasy going on. I mean, Jesus, it gives me a headache just to think about.

Which is exactly why they are so dangerous, and despite the arch-Republican's trolling, this is about Brexit, not gun-crazies in wildest straw-out-of-ears American states. We have enough nutters in the UK, too. Fortunately, most of them aren't armed and only have their bigotry to help them through the daily fights. Yet - look at the damage that a couple of percentage points can inflict across the nation when it comes down to votes.

[Robert Roaldi]

The UK is the first.  Other nations will follow unless the EU changes. 

What in the EU has to change, in your opinion?

[Alan Klein]

C'mon, Alan, but this is simply horseshit. Those people with guns aren't at political rallies to demonstrate their right to bear arms; they're there to intimidate, pure and simple. We have a New Mexico politican/religious freak (Otero County Commissioner, gun guy and Cowboys for Trump founder Cory Griffin) who recently made a speech that said he's come around to the view that the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat. And he carries a gun. And he goes to campaign meetings. How are you supposed to be a Democrat and interpret a loaded AR15 in the hands of somebody like that? And I'm an American and an Army veteran and frankly, after a lot of years of covering politics from city halls to four national conventions, as well as cops and school board, I think I know how America works as well as you do. You really think somebody needs a gun to protest and have freedom of speech? It's obvious how stupid this thought is, when you actually look at the people who do this, a bunch of overweight clowns in camo who have this hero fantasy going on. I mean, Jesus, it gives me a headache just to think about.

It's not something that I would do nor are these the kind of people I would hang out with.  I don't even own a gun.  But people march for all sorts of reasons in America.  It's called freedom.  As long as they do it constitutionally and legally for their locality, it's not my business. 

Also, each state handles guns differently.  If you don't like people walking around with guns, move out of New Mexico, part of cowboy country.  There are 50 states.  Come here to New Jersey.  You don't have that kind of stuff going on here.  Here the politicians lock you up in your home forever and dare you to show your guns.

Which state is better?  Whose practices are more compatible with liberty? America is a big place that has different styles and customs depending where you live. 

[Alan Klein]

What in the EU has to change, in your opinion?

Keep the EU for commercial applications, trade, etc.  Sort of like America, Canada, and Mexico's NAFTA now called USMCA.  But don't allow it to be involved with how the countries run politically.  Leave each country to decide on those things democratically with their own representatives in their own country, not from Brussels.  Trying to be the United States of Europe won't work when each nation has their own identity, language, customs, history, patriotic impulses, etc. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Keep the EU for commercial applications, trade, etc.  Sort of like America, Canada, and Mexico's NAFTA now called USMCA.  But don't allow it to be involved with how the countries run politically.  Leave each country to decide on those things democratically with their own representatives in their own country, not from Brussels.  Trying to be the United States of Europe won't work when each nation has their own identity, language, customs, history, patriotic impulses, etc.

What examples of political meddling can you give?

There were many areas of the NAFTA agreement where a company could sue the government of another country, but I have forgotten the exact circumstances under which this could happen. My guess is that it has to do with restraint of trade. My memory is hazy on this, but I seem to recall US companies sueing (or threatening to sue) either the federal or some provincial governments wrt their water policies. I hope I have that right, but I could easily be mixing up my stories.

Regardless of details, my point is this, which is the better mechanism for handling inter-country disputes, meeting in a public parliament to hash things out, or private lawsuits in the courts largely hidden from public scrutiny, each company angling for their own benefit. Do you think doing things in back rooms is good for public policy?

I also have another more general question wrt foreign policy. You, and Trump, and others have voiced opinions that could be generally called isolationist, especially when it comes to the UN. The opinion seems to be that the UN is corrupt and useless. So then why are you concerned if, to use one example, that China has more influence at WHO than the US? If you don't think that WHO serves a useful purpose, why worry about who influences it? But more than that, if the US pulls out of international agreements and wants to go it alone, why do you complain when other countries move in to fill the void internationally, I mean, what did you think was going to happen?

[Rob C]

What examples of political meddling can you give?

There were many areas of the NAFTA agreement where a company could sue the government of another country, but I have forgotten the exact circumstances under which this could happen. My guess is that it has to do with restraint of trade. My memory is hazy on this, but I seem to recall US companies sueing (or threatening to sue) either the federal or some provincial governments wrt their water policies. I hope I have that right, but I could easily be mixing up my stories.

Regardless of details, my point is this, which is the better mechanism for handling inter-country disputes, meeting in a public parliament to hash things out, or private lawsuits in the courts largely hidden from public scrutiny, each company angling for their own benefit. Do you think doing things in back rooms is good for public policy?

I also have another more general question wrt foreign policy. You, and Trump, and others have voiced opinions that could be generally called isolationist, especially when it comes to the UN. The opinion seems to be that the UN is corrupt and useless. So then why are you concerned if, to use one example, that China has more influence at WHO than the US? If you don't think that WHO serves a useful purpose, why worry about who influences it? But more than that, if the US pulls out of international agreements and wants to go it alone, why do you complain when other countries move in to fill the void internationally, I mean, what did you think was going to happen?

Robert, the misconception about the EU running member countries politically has been explained to this **** a million times over. He simply doesn't read, doesn't care to know or is otherwise locked firmly into his circle of thought that sees life as whatever fits the notion of only the US having freedoms of any kind. In other words, Uncle Sam has done a good job of brainwashing this cat.

Don't allow yourself to get sucked back into such worlds of onanistic completeness. Every piece of shit that hits him medically is somehow both terrible but wonderful because of the system that surrounds it. Dreadful he can't buy the "best" doctors because he doesn't have the bread, but hey, what a beautiful system that only the fat cats can! Weird doesn't begin to describe it; insane might.

[Robert Roaldi]

"onanistic completeness"

I wish I had written that.

[Rob C]

I wish I had written that.

It's that childhood exposure to Veneto that brings it on.

:-)

[Alan Klein]

What examples of political meddling can you give?

There were many areas of the NAFTA agreement where a company could sue the government of another country, but I have forgotten the exact circumstances under which this could happen. My guess is that it has to do with restraint of trade. My memory is hazy on this, but I seem to recall US companies sueing (or threatening to sue) either the federal or some provincial governments wrt their water policies. I hope I have that right, but I could easily be mixing up my stories.

Regardless of details, my point is this, which is the better mechanism for handling inter-country disputes, meeting in a public parliament to hash things out, or private lawsuits in the courts largely hidden from public scrutiny, each company angling for their own benefit. Do you think doing things in back rooms is good for public policy?

I also have another more general question wrt foreign policy. You, and Trump, and others have voiced opinions that could be generally called isolationist, especially when it comes to the UN. The opinion seems to be that the UN is corrupt and useless. So then why are you concerned if, to use one example, that China has more influence at WHO than the US? If you don't think that WHO serves a useful purpose, why worry about who influences it? But more than that, if the US pulls out of international agreements and wants to go it alone, why do you complain when other countries move in to fill the void internationally, I mean, what did you think was going to happen?

Immigration issues.  Loss of jobs to foreigners.   Regulations from Brussels; loss of sovereignty.   Bailing out lazy countries.  This last one we kind of have in the US.  Some rich states send more money in taxes to Washington than they get back.  The extra money goes to poorer states.  Lot's of fighting about that.  But at least we're all Americans.  It creates resentments when you have to bail out people who are strangers, who seem to be taking advantage of the system.

I don't know about how lawsuits work in NAFTA or USMCA. Apparently you don't either. 

[Alan Klein]

...

I also have another more general question wrt foreign policy. You, and Trump, and others have voiced opinions that could be generally called isolationist, especially when it comes to the UN. The opinion seems to be that the UN is corrupt and useless. So then why are you concerned if, to use one example, that China has more influence at WHO than the US? If you don't think that WHO serves a useful purpose, why worry about who influences it? But more than that, if the US pulls out of international agreements and wants to go it alone, why do you complain when other countries move in to fill the void internationally, I mean, what did you think was going to happen?

A lot of Americans have decided that our involvement in overseas affairs has cost us a lot of blood and treasure.  That it's not worth it.  We're broke, going broker, and let others handle their own defense. 

With China having more influence at WHO, it raises the question, WHY?  Who have they gotten too?  Who at WHO has been paid off?  Something smells.  We contribute $450 million for WHO operations to China's paltry $30 million.  Yet, WHO kowtows to China. They covered for their malfeasance regarding COVID 19.

[Rob C]

Currently, the people of the UK are holding their collective breath to see whether or not Boris has the balls to fire his chief advisor who blatantly broke lockdown rules in order to drive hundreds of miles from London and back - there is dispute about how often - to take wife and child oop north for supposedly the protection of the child. Really? But others in similar situations can not do the same? Can't even go to the funeral of their dead child in the same town?

There have been dozens of calls for the man's head, including from Tory party members who say keeping him in office nullifies the current restriction laws and underlines the fact of one rule for the proles and another for the politicians. Of course, if Boris lets him go, then who is going to prop up Boris, who is the Great Charlatan with no convictions and few personal abilities of his own, and who in effect, is nothing but the mouthpiece for the chief advisor who, with the tiny group of backroom boys, really form the power in the Tory establishment?

Again we see the colours of those people behind this unrecognizable new Tory party that, along with other malcontents with money, took just over half of Britain and the Brits by the nose and led them over the white cliffs of Brexit.

Corinna, coming when she has, must be the perfect gift: press ahead with Brexit "negotiations" whilst the country and the press is blinded by the pandemic and not paying attention to what's being fixed over Europe.

[John Camp]

Currently, the people of the UK are holding their collective breath to see whether or not Boris has the balls to fire his chief advisor who blatantly broke lockdown rules in order to drive hundreds of miles from London and back - there is dispute about how often - to take wife and child oop north for supposedly the protection of the child. Really? But others in similar situations can not do the same? Can't even go to the funeral of their dead child in the same town?

There have been dozens of calls for the man's head, including from Tory party members who say keeping him in office nullifies the current restriction laws and underlines the fact of one rule for the proles and another for the politicians. Of course, if Boris lets him go, then who is going to prop up Boris, who is the Great Charlatan with no convictions and few personal abilities of his own, and who in effect, is nothing but the mouthpiece for the chief advisor who, with the tiny group of backroom boys, really form the power in the Tory establishment?

Again we see the colours of those people behind this unrecognizable new Tory party that, along with other malcontents with money, took just over half of Britain and the Brits by the nose and led them over the cliff of Brexit.

Corinna, coming when she has, must be the perfect gift: press ahead with Brexit "negotiations" whilst the country and the press is blinded by the pandemic and not paying attention to what's being fixed over Europe.

I cut the guy a slight bit of slack (is that slang in the UK as well as the US?) because he was apparently trying to protect his child, something nobody has really denied. I know it seems hypocritical, but if it were my kid, I might very well have done the same -- although the weak part of the argument is the idea that some alternative child care might not be available. I think the chief advisor to the PM could probably have arranged something.

[degrub]

Slack, sure. R.H.I.P. though. Or maybe it is Elite Has Its Privilege.
Either way, bad form and caught out on it, unapologetic.

[Rob C]

I cut the guy a slight bit of slack (is that slang in the UK as well as the US?) because he was apparently trying to protect his child, something nobody has really denied. I know it seems hypocritical, but if it were my kid, I might very well have done the same -- although the weak part of the argument is the idea that some alternative child care might not be available. I think the chief advisor to the PM could probably have arranged something.

Yes, it's valid slang in Britain too. In fact, considering that so much of popular parlance derives from Hollywood and music, almost anything to do with slang that flies in America flies everywhere else too where English is the common key. There may well be exceptions within black street culture, where I believe it changes rapidly and from place to place, and may thus be pretty incomprehensible to outsiders at the best of times.

Regarding the kid: were it myself, I too might have said the hell with the rules were there no alternative; but, as you suggest, could that really be the case for him, living in the hallowed halls of superstardom as he does? No government contingency plans available? With this government, however, possibly not!

Importantly - in fact probably the main point; had I done that, it would simply be irresponsible and my head might roll, but then nobody is expected to follow my example, wheres as the guys at the top are all about example and leadership- or supposedly so. In fact, it brings out direct comparisons with some religious leaders and small children...

[John Camp]

Off topic -- your comments about slang got me going. I've noticed British phrases being picked up in the US with some frequency. "Ring off" or "Rang off" is becoming common because "Hang Up," the American equivalent, becomes meaningless when there's nothing to "hang up" or to hang it on. I've heard "taking the piss" on a few occasions here, although that may be more Aussie than British. Also "wanker" and the British "brilliant" are now widely understood and often used. 

[Jeremy Roussak]

Also "wanker" and the British "brilliant" are now widely understood and often used.

Although perhaps not in Pahrump, Nevada.

Jeremy