*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

[Poopadoop]

This claim is at odds with suggestions that people's political opinions are "bad" or "wrong".

Disagreeing != contempt.

Because I disagree with you and accuse you of holding half the country in contempt? Nice.

No I accuse you of being ignorant because you use a xenophobic dogwhistle while claiming not to be xenophobic. Keep up.

No, but it's impolite to tell people they voted wrong.

I respectfully disagree. I'm sorry if you feel that means I hold you in contempt. It doesn't mean that at all.

I never suggested you were. But you continue to play divisive politics after the democratic outcome.

I'm not playing politics mate. I'm not running for office here.

What purpose does it serve other than to maintain an aura of political tension?

Education.

I wish you'd shut up about it, and not because you're Canadian. I wish everyone would shut up about Brexit. It's happened. Get over it, move on with your life.

No-one is forcing you to read and/or engage with this thread are they?

Not at all. But what's the plan? Spend the next decade complaining about a democratic decision? What possible positive outcome can this have?

You're confusing complaining with explaining. I've invited you several times to explain the benefits of Brexit, and you haven't managed to come up with anything other than vague concepts of sovereignty and democracy that aren't in any way tangible.

[spoonitnow]

Complaining about dogwhistles often undermines what could otherwise be a good argument because they're made up and don't matter.



Much like crypto.

[oskar]

Who is going to organize anything resembling a "civil war" on the republican side? Your guys stormed the capitol and then couldn't think of anything to do except smear shit on the walls and sit in a chair they're not supposed to sit in... and that one was master minded by the biggest brain you had. Those were the 4d chess moves.

The closest you'll get to a civil war is some militia larpers going Allahu Akbar on a vaccination tent.

[spoonitnow]

Who is going to organize anything resembling a "civil war" on the republican side?

The next civil war, if we have one before the country just collapses as a whole, won't be Republican vs. Democrat or right vs. left. It'll be either: 1) the two center parties against the two fringe parties (who will also be against each other), or 2) everyone against communists.

Your guys stormed the capitol...

My guys were out in the protests selling MAGA t-shirts and hats.

Note that the people who stormed the Capitol were the fringiest of the fringe on the right. They don't represent the right in any serious way. If you don't think that or accept that, then I have a bridge to sell you.

[oskar]

As someone with a better track record at predicting american politics than yourself, I can guarantee you democrats will not split for at least another 12 years. Who would even split? The furthest people to the left have voiced no interest in splitting the party.
The only way republicans split is if Trump forms his own party. I don't see that happening because Trump has no interest in politics. He wants his belly rubbed by spineless sycophants, and there are easier ways to do that like TrumpTV or turning "the office of the former president" into a reality show.

[spoonitnow]

As someone with a better track record at predicting american politics than yourself

I can guarantee you democrats will not split for at least another 12 years.

You have no viable way to make either of these claims.

Who would even split? The furthest people to the left have voiced no interest in splitting the party.

This is simply false. The MPP is proof of that.

Moreover, the only viable primary challenger from the left in the past two presidential elections wasn't even from the same party.

The only way republicans split is if Trump forms his own party.

This is simply false: https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberth...litical-party/

But look, I'm not going to do this with you. You just spout off a bunch of opinions as fact and don't know nearly as much about American politics as you think you do. Having a conversation with you is like working as an unpaid fact checker, and it's not worth my time since the chance of you admitting you're wrong seems low even in the face of clear evidence.

[oskar]

Having a conversation with you is like working as an unpaid fact checker, and it's not worth my time since the chance of you admitting you're wrong seems low even in the face of clear evidence.

We had a similar conversation about 2 years ago where I said Trump will be either removed through impeachment or lose re-election in a landslide and his supporters would lose their mind and march on DC, and I believe the way you put it was "what movie are you watching" and that Trump will crush re-election yadda yadda.

"anti Trump party"... If I had any respect for you I would think you were joking. Trump's approval among republicans is over 80% after Jan 6. Yeah sure, form an anti-trump party. It has no shot of breaking 1%. That's not splitting the party.
Republicans will not break with Trump, and thinking they will is insane.

I know for sure democrats won't split because democrats are many things but they aren't stupid. Republicans are done. Trump lost in a landslide, but they can't break with Trump... noone aspiring to run on the red ticket for sure can't denounce Trump so you're stuck with Trump-but-worse in a race that Trump got humiliated in. Democrats will hold on to all 3 branches for at least 8 years barring a miracle. No reason to fuck that up.

I do not know what MPP is. I assume it's some dumb shit.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What do you mean by the parties splitting?

Will the split come from politicians or from voters?

I mean, will the sitting politicians change / divide their teams? Or will the voters elect non-incumbent leaders?

[spoonitnow]

What do you mean by the parties splitting?

Will the split come from politicians or from voters?

I mean, will the sitting politicians change / divide their teams? Or will the voters elect non-incumbent leaders?

A new party forms. People from an existing party leave en masse to the new party. It's pretty straightforward.

The Republican Party is the most likely to split first by far and can split in two viable ways:

1. Moderates leave to form a new conservative party - https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberth...litical-party/
2. Trump and/or the MAGA delegation forms a new party - https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...ump-poll-finds

The only viable way for the Democratic Party to split is for the socialist left to split. Bernie only declined to lead a new party because he was running for president again in 2020 and saw it as something that would guarantee Trump's re-election - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moveme...ople%27s_Party

The interesting scenario is that he would have much more of an incentive to lead such a party if the Republican Party itself split because that disadvantage isn't as serious.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Is the continued denial of the legitimacy of the 2020 election by some Republican leaders part of this, or related to the split?

What do they stand to gain by undermining the legitimacy of US elections?

(Insofar as whatever wrongdoing could not overturn the results / not saying there was no impropriety whatsoever. Feel free to correct me if you don't agree.)

[spoonitnow]

Before I answer this, it's critical to note that the election was extremely, extremely close. A lot of people, especially non-Americans, don't understand how ridiculously close it was because our system for elections is so atypical.

With an election of more than 155 million votes total, if 6k votes went the opposite way in Georgia (a state with over 4.9 million votes), 5.5k went the opposite way in Arizona (a state with over 3.2 million votes) and 20.5k went the opposite way in Wisconsin (a state with over 3.2 million votes), the electoral college would have been a tie at 279-279, and all hell would have broken loose with what we call a contingent election, in part because Trump would have most likely won based on our rules for that.

For scale, imagine an election with about 155,000 votes total. If 32 votes went a different way, the results of the election would have been different. That's essentially what we're dealing with here.

I point this out to show that, in terms of numbers, it's absolutely the case that the election could have plausibly been stolen (in either direction) because things were simply so close. If Trump won this election with these numbers, we'd be hearing all about the Russians rigged it or something similar instead.

Is the continued denial of the legitimacy of the 2020 election by some Republican leaders part of this, or related to the split?

That's part of it, but it's not really a core issue. The primary issue is that a lot more voters are more loyal to Trump than the Republican Party at this point, but that's been the case since the 2016 election for a lot of people. The reasons for how indifferent they are about the Republican Party go back decades. Long story short, the United States doesn't really have a actual conservative party.

Since so many are more voters are loyal to Trump and the MAGA agenda, many in GOP leadership tried to align themselves with him to help with their re-election over the past four years. Ted Cruz is a good example who is in the news right now. Having an endorsement from Trump is a really big deal right now and helps your chances in elections a lot.

What do they stand to gain by undermining the legitimacy of US elections?

That brings us back to the elections. Whether they give a shit about the election or not is kind of irrelevant. For example, for a lot of them, they're probably actually in a better position with Trump losing than winning because fundraising goes better when you're the minority party in Congress.

For the most part, they're just aligning themselves with Trump to get that rub.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Thanks for the answers.

Didn't Ted Cruze vote against Trump in the 2nd impeachment? Or do I have that crossed in my head?


Re. the first part:
I'd have agreed with you that it could have plausibly been stolen before the dozens of court cases ruled against all the allegations of election fraud on any mass scale. Now that we have more information, from a variety of different sources and court rulings, I'm not inclined to agree.

What claims of election fraud are you convinced by?

I don't think your statistical equivalence of boiling it down to the 32 votes out of 155,000 takes into account the joint probability of all 3 states flipping. If we're going to analyze the numbers, we need political maps of each state in question to examine which counties went which way, and exactly where those discrepant votes could have come from, given what we already know.


I don't think analysis "based on numbers" alone is adequate to understand the 2020 election at this point.
At any rate, analysis based on only the numbers seems like ignoring a wealth of data we now have, months after the event.

[Poopadoop]

I don't think analysis "based on numbers" alone is adequate to understand the 2020 election at this point.
At any rate, analysis based on only the numbers seems like ignoring a wealth of data we now have, months after the event.

Yeah, there's a problem with boiling it down like that for sure.

The votes aren't simply a small percentage of votes overall, as 32/155,000 implies. It's a percentage of votes in three separate states all run independently. In order for the fraud to have happened, they'd have had to a) first identify which states they'd need the votes in before any votes were counted; and then b) ensure that enough fraudulent votes were "found" in each of those states to tip the election.

a) above is somewhat plausible. You could imagine a fraud conspiracy where they say 'states Q to Z are going to be close, let's focus our fraudulent activities on those.' But b) is not really plausible. How do you know that you will need (say) 6k votes in Georgia to win? If you really wanted to ensure that your side won, you wouldn't be looking for these small margins. You'd be pumping 100k votes or more into each of these states. Then you have to find a way to cover it up, independently, in each of these states. High officials in each of those states would have to be complicit in the fraud and cover up. There can't be any traces left in even one of those states because it will cause the whole thing to unravel. It'd require a level of organisation that would make D-Day look like a picnic on the beach.

I'm not saying it would be completely impossible to pull off, but it does seem extremely unlikely given it would require human beings to be in charge of the planning and execution of it.

[spoonitnow]

Thanks for the answers.

Didn't Ted Cruze vote against Trump in the 2nd impeachment? Or do I have that crossed in my head?

Ted Cruz did not vote to convict Trump in either impeachment trial.

Before I dive into the rest, I want to point out that we're not talking about statistical and mathematical assessment and evaluation with a goal of trying to decide if the election was stolen. We're not even trying to find out if the election was actually stolen. We're talking about the politics of Republican leaders playing up the claims of an illegitimate election.

I want to point that out so that you don't think I'm being dismissive or flippant with what I'm about to say. I'll use italics to differentiate my politician voice from actual discussion.

I'd have agreed with you that it could have plausibly been stolen before the dozens of court cases ruled against all the allegations of election fraud on any mass scale.

The courts are rigged. They're all a bunch of deep state plants trying to undermine Trump's legitimate claim to the presidency.

While we're at it, Trump's election lawyers were also plants who were paid off to undermine him.

Btw click here to donate.

Now that we have more information, from a variety of different sources and court rulings, I'm not inclined to agree.

Oh okay, so you're going to believe the rigged courts and the very fake news. You're one of those. This is how fascism gets you. They control the media first, and then they control the courts.

What claims of election fraud are you convinced by?

Election fraud happens in virtually every US election on the national, state and local levels. It's just a part of the game here. Hell, much of our news cycle for 2017, 2018 and 2019 was about how Russia rigged our presidential election. Even back in 2000 with Bush vs. Gore, we had a whole kerfluffle about the entire election coming down to what happened in a few districts in a single state that ended up going to the Supreme Court.

To think that this presidential election was somehow completely immune to that or that none of our elections have ever been decided by election fraud is kind of silly. But to your point, I'm not interested in getting into some long, drawn-out debate about whether or not the election results are legitimate. I couldn't possibly know for sure whether they were one way or the other, and I don't particularly care.

I don't think your statistical equivalence of boiling it down to the 32 votes out of 155,000 takes into account the joint probability of all 3 states flipping. If we're going to analyze the numbers, we need political maps of each state in question to examine which counties went which way, and exactly where those discrepant votes could have come from, given what we already know.

I don't think analysis "based on numbers" alone is adequate to understand the 2020 election at this point.
At any rate, analysis based on only the numbers seems like ignoring a wealth of data we now have, months after the event.

What I wanted to illustrate with that example was that the election was a lot closer than most non-Americans realize from just looking at the popular vote or the electoral college.

With the election being so close, it makes claims of election fraud much more viable than if it was a blowout. It also makes it much easier to convince voters and get them to the polls.

At this point, being a Republican politician and not pushing the election issue is probably a liability.

I'm not making anymore of these long-ass posts, but you get the idea.

[Poopadoop]

I also agree that the main reason most R politicians support Trump, or ever supported him, was out of cynical self-interest. It's pretty obvious when you see how the same guys who were calling him a horrible lunatic before he won the nomination in '16 suddenly turned into his firm supporters after he won. Christie, Cruz, Graham, all spring to mind in that regard.

[spoonitnow]

I think the biggest reason he claimed fraud is that Trump doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself. It was his way to avoid having to admit defeat.

That may be the case, but it's also a bit overly simplistic. Pushing the election fraud story is very on-brand for him at this point, and it puts him in the best position to keep his base riled up for his post-2020 plans, whatever those may be. We've seen talks about a news channel to compete with Fox as one example of a direction he could go in.

Don't forget that he was claiming election fraud in the 2016 election before it even happened.

In any event, I think we can agree that he maintains more power if he claims election fraud than if he doesn't, which makes it the correct move for him from his perspective.

I also agree that the main reason most R politicians support Trump, or ever supported him, was out of cynical self-interest. It's pretty obvious when you see how the same guys who were calling him a horrible lunatic before he won the nomination in '16 suddenly turned into his firm supporters after he won. Christie, Cruz, Graham, all spring to mind in that regard.

It's also tied to the main reason he got virtually none of his agenda done when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. They were pissy that he beat the entire party on the grandest political stage of them all and wouldn't work with him.

Once it became clear that his win wasn't a fluke and that voters weren't going to show up for other GOP candidates, that's when they started trying to play the role of supporter.

And I mean, Trump welcomed it and handled that reasonably well once they wanted to give their support. Him making up with Ted Cruz after the shit their respective campaigns said about each other's wives was one example.

[spoonitnow]

Yeah, there's a problem with boiling it down like that for sure.

The votes aren't simply a small percentage of votes overall, as 32/155,000 implies. It's a percentage of votes in three separate states all run independently. In order for the fraud to have happened, they'd have had to a) first identify which states they'd need the votes in before any votes were counted; and then b) ensure that enough fraudulent votes were "found" in each of those states to tip the election.

a) above is somewhat plausible. You could imagine a fraud conspiracy where they say 'states Q to Z are going to be close, let's focus our fraudulent activities on those.' But b) is not really plausible. How do you know that you will need (say) 6k votes in Georgia to win? If you really wanted to ensure that your side won, you wouldn't be looking for these small margins. You'd be pumping 100k votes or more into each of these states. Then you have to find a way to cover it up, independently, in each of these states. High officials in each of those states would have to be complicit in the fraud and cover up. There can't be any traces left in even one of those states because it will cause the whole thing to unravel. It'd require a level of organisation that would make D-Day look like a picnic on the beach.

I'm not saying it would be completely impossible to pull off, but it does seem extremely unlikely given it would require human beings to be in charge of the planning and execution of it.

Like MMM, you're trying to debate whether the election was stolen. That's not the topic. The topic is the politics of pushing that idea as a Republican politician right now.

I don't disagree with either of you. You're just trying to go into another topic that's not what I'm talking about here.

[Poopadoop]

Discrediting the election is just a political tactic to get your side riled up. The problem is if your supporters take it too literally they might just give up on voting and grab their pitchforks. That's why most politicians won't go down that road unless their led there by someone.

I think the biggest reason he claimed fraud is that Trump doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself. It was his way to avoid having to admit defeat.

[spoonitnow]

I mean to come back to this:

Discrediting the election is just a political tactic to get your side riled up. The problem is if your supporters take it too literally they might just give up on voting and grab their pitchforks. That's why most politicians won't go down that road unless their led there by someone.

While I don't disagree, let's not forget that the ongoing narrative for vast majority of the past four years from the Democratic Party has been that the 2016 election was not legitimate.

Both sides have been going on one about the elections not being legitimate since early in the 2016 general election, and I think it's gotten to the point that trust in the integrity of the election in general is lower for everyone.

That's one of the reasons why I think that Republican politicians are finding it easier to jump on that bandwagon right now for political points despite what I quoted of you above.

[Poopadoop]

Hmm, I don't recall anyone ever saying the election was lost directly because of Russian interference, or if they did I never paid it any attention. Mostly what I heard was complaints that up against a confessed pussy-grabber, Hillary somehow managed to be the less appealing candidate.

Also, claiming foreign interference is a much different angle than saying it was corrupted from within, in terms of what it does to public opinion. Obviously countries have a vested interest in each other's elections and are going to interfere as much as they can get away with. It's not like you're going to discover some Russian MAGAbots on facebook and then go to war over it. But if people think the elections are being rigged by the other side in their own country, that's probably going to cause some problems within your own borders.

It's a lot less dangerous to have your citizens mad at Russia than mad at each other and their own gov't.

[MadMojoMonkey]

... but didn't the entirety of the Russian involvement boil down to some Facebook pages and other social media tomfoolery? Like... that was the extent of it, right?

So it was really nothing like what we're talking about w.r.t. the 2020 election fraud claims, right?

[oskar]

MMM: "What specific claims of fraud regarding the 2020 presidential election do you find credible?"

Spoon: "2016 democratic Iowa Caucus"

[MadMojoMonkey]

Sorry if I made it seem like I was trying to debate anything. I'm not interested in debate.
I'm interested in growing as a person and understanding what people who passionately disagree with me are passionate about.

Cause I know I'm nowhere near perfect, and that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I just don't know which things I'm wrong about, or else I'd just change them and be right... so I'm looking for people that can challenge my opinions with thoughtful opinions.

We're just a couple guys talking. I've been desperately seeking an intelligent person to explain the positions of the US political right for over a year, now. I'm sincerely interested in what you have to say as an intelligent person with opinions that differ from mine. I'm not interested in "trying" to change your mind or mine. I'm interested in learning what you hold true so that I may better understand a sensible voice.

When I asked what claims of election fraud you were convinced by, that's a genuine and direct question. I'm not asserting there was no fraud in any election. I'm saying that what I heard about the fraud claims in the 2020 election were unconvincing to me, and if you are convinced by something, then maybe I will be, too, because I missed it in my news bubble.

The last thing I want is to get into a heated discussion about whether the left or the right has a better vision of our future. I firmly believe that either side is fine. If we gave full control to either the R's or the D's, things would be fine. Different, sure, but fine. Both sides want what's best for America. We're arguing about these tiny slivers near the center. So who cares, IMO.

We have opinions. I'm interested in learning yours and why because I respect your intelligence and that you and I fall on separate sides of a lot of political issues. I'm not interested in changing your mind, and if mine changes because you've educated me, then that's awesome, but I'm not talking to you to be lectured at... right? We're just 2 dudes talking, here.

[spoonitnow]

I've been desperately seeking an intelligent person to explain the positions of the US political right for over a year, now. I'm sincerely interested in what you have to say as an intelligent person with opinions that differ from mine. I'm not interested in "trying" to change your mind or mine. I'm interested in learning what you hold true so that I may better understand a sensible voice.

I just didn't want you to think that I was giving my own position in terms of things like thinking the election was rigged when I was laying out the landscape.

Explaining the positions of the US political right is difficult right now for other reasons though. We don't have an actual conservative party anymore. However, we do have lots of dumbasses (on both sides) who believe ridiculous horseshit and who want to take it to similarly ridiculous extremes.

I'll go over the basic conservative stances for the US in a nutshell though and the reasoning behind them in my next post in this thread.

... but didn't the entirety of the Russian involvement boil down to some Facebook pages and other social media tomfoolery? Like... that was the extent of it, right?

There were a few different fronts. The one you're thinking of was targeted advertising on social media platforms that was directly geared toward building the type of insane polarization we have now. They had ads in favor of everything you can imagine like Bernie, Hillary, Trump, BLM and whatever else. They just made sure they showed up in zip codes where it would piss off the most people and rile things up as much as they could.

Another front was that some Russian government figures allegedly offered the Trump campaign dirt on the Clinton campaign in exchange for something or another. They didn't actually take the deal, but campaign officials did meet with those Russian figures to discuss a deal.

Yet another front was the Hillary emails issue, which is partially tied into the above. I'm sure you remember reading blah blah 30,000 emails. As Secretary of State under Obama, Hillary broke a bunch of laws to do with handling classified data, her email security and things of that nature. Her people then went wayyyy out of their way to cover up evidence of it. Those last two sentences are undisputed and are just factual things that happened (like all of their phones being busted with hammers and all of this other crazy stuff that actually turned out to be true; she went in front of Congress over it but got a slap on the wrist at best).

The question was always if those emails had been hacked (presumably by Russia; it could have been the dirt they were offering) and what was in those emails that she needed to hide that would have covered up whatever crimes, including more improper handling of classified data. That's what created all of the conspiracy theory type stuff over that.

So it was really nothing like what we're talking about w.r.t. the 2020 election fraud claims, right?

Sort of the same but also different.

For example, the DNC rigged the primary election against Bernie. That's established fact. People were fired for it. Donna Brazile was fired from CNN over it for feeding questions from debates and town halls to the Clinton campaign ahead of time during the primary against Bernie. Debbie whatsherface-Schultz, the Congresswoman from the same district as the Parkland school shooting, was fired from the DNC over it (and immediately given a cushy job with the Clinton campaign). Her replacement was... Donna Brazile. Somehow, Donna Brazile ended up working for Fox News after all of that was over with. There's a whole thing there that's interesting on its own.

As far as the general election and Russia goes, there were allegations of voting machines being hacked by Russia and all of this mess, but it never really got major media attention because the cycle was dominated by Trump stuff. It's all in the Mueller mess if you want to read through that clusterfuck of a novel.

[spoonitnow]

I started writing out a list of political issues and where conservatives stand on them. I had to break each topic up into a list of how each conservative group views them, which turned into a list of bullet point lists. It got really long really quickly, and I was only a portion of the way done. I also felt like I wasn't achieving the aim I set out for.

Instead, and trying to keep with the spirit of what I set out to do without it getting too dry, I'll pick two hot-button topics and explain the situation surrounding them and why they're so contentious in not too many sentences.

Gun Control

The debate over the Second Amendment (which gives us the right to bear arms) boils down to whether or not it only applies to federally regulated militias. The court case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decided that it didn't only apply to those militias. That's only 13 fucking years ago that this was decided in court, which is insane to think about since it's been a contentious issue for so long.

One of the founding principles of our government is that human beings are born with rights and that rights are not given by the government. Instead, rights are protected by the government and are only limited in situations where it's necessary to avoid a person infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

As such, the conservative position is that the Second Amendment is in place to protect a person's right, given to them by virtue of being born, to own and carry arms. That right doesn't disappear because someone commits a crime with a gun, and living with those crimes is frequently considered a part of the unpleasant sacrifice required to have our rights protected.

Abortion

There are four important aspects of the abortion issue that I can think of off the top of my head, one of which (#4) isn't about abortion per se:

1. Some people believe that human life begins at conception, so abortion is the killing of an unborn child. That's why they're against it. It's not an unreasonable position if you follow the premise to its logical conclusion.
2. Another premise you can start with is that of bodily autonomy (ie: if your brother has a car accident and will die if you don't give him a kidney; the government cannot force you to undergo something that could risk you harm or death to benefit another). If you follow that to its logical conclusion, then the government cannot make it illegal even if you think it's unethical.
3. Curiously enough, this is a topic that white nationalists and white supremacists frequently disagree on. White nationalists think that abortion in the white ethnostate has to be illegal as a matter of national security. However, white supremacists are often in favor of abortion because it's chosen disproportionately by black people.
4. Planned Parenthood receives a lot of funding from the government. They also contribute a lot in political donations. Virtually all conservatives, regardless of where they stand on the abortion itself, see this as political corruption in the sense that any body or company that receives government funding should not be able to make political donations.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I mean... I want to clarify that I'm not interested in understanding the bonehead Right perspective (nor the bonehead Left perspective).
I'm not asking you to catalogue the state of political factions for me.

I'm asking what you support and believe in. I recall you and I are more in line than not on guns and abortion in the past. Though if we talk about guns, oskar might pop a blood vessel about it. (mwah winky face heart)

I mean - my position on guns is that if anyone can have them, then everyone can have them. I do not think it's morally acceptable to have a citizenry that is outlawed from the means to revolt against their government should they choose. I'm pretty sure that's what the 2nd amendment is about.

Abortion is, to me, a medical issue, and I'm not a doctor. Or a woman.
I kinda don't think anyone who's neither a medical doctor nor a woman should be given a microphone on this issue.

[spoonitnow]

I'm not asking you to catalogue the state of political factions for me.

There may have been a misunderstanding on this then. That's exactly what I took it for when you said, "I've been desperately seeking an intelligent person to explain the positions of the US political right for over a year, now."

I'm asking what you support and believe in.

I can do that, but I don't think you'll feel satisfaction at how non-specific a lot of it is.

Abortion is, to me, a medical issue, and I'm not a doctor. Or a woman.
I kinda don't think anyone who's neither a medical doctor nor a woman should be given a microphone on this issue.

Abortion cannot be seen as purely a medical issue because of its effects on the demographic makeup of the population. It's never been purely a medical issue in US history either. For example, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and massive fan of eugenics, didn't see it as purely a medical issue when she was giving talks to the Ku Klux Klan or when she was getting funding for her "Negro Project." It affects race, the economy, crime, eugenics and plenty of other issues here.

[MadMojoMonkey]

There may have been a misunderstanding on this then.

OK. I didn't word that well. My bad.

I can do that, but I don't think you'll feel satisfaction at how non-specific a lot of it is.

More likely that is exactly what I'm seeking.

Abortion cannot be seen as purely a medical issue because of its effects on the demographic makeup of the population. It's never been purely a medical issue in US history either. For example, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and massive fan of eugenics, didn't see it as purely a medical issue when she was giving talks to the Ku Klux Klan or when she was getting funding for her "Negro Project." It affects race, the economy, crime, eugenics and plenty of other issues here.

Even a broken clock, eh?
Planned Parenthood has moved far from those racist beginnings, IMO.
FYI, my gal is the entire* marketing dept. for the St Louis Planned Parenthood so I can get more info for you at the drop of a dime if you'd like to know more about what PP is today.


I might as well say all police are racist because the formation of police departments in the US came out of self-appointed slave catchers chasing blacks across the North. Those self-appointed bounty hunters transitioned smoothly into police departments.

I don't think either statement is connecting the dots without skipping dots.


*Her boss accepted a position in the Biden administration not long ago and was a VP of Planned Parenthood, who is in the process of being replaced, but the position hasn't been filled, yet. Also, their graphics designer was a total slacker POS who either left them or was let go about a year ago and the company slacked hard on replacing him due to the COVID stuff.

[spoonitnow]

I'm asking what you support and believe in.

Well, since you wanted to open this can of worms so badly...

There's always going to be a powerful numerical minority with a disproportionate amount of power and influence, and they're always going to financially exploit the less powerful majority. Master-slave morality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master...slave_morality) does a good job of giving a moral basis to these two groups and why they support the things they do. The Pareto Principle and Price's Law do a good job of explaining why this happens.

If this exploitation goes completely unchecked, it's ultimately bad for the powerful minority because it destabilizes society and leads to war. However, if limitations on this exploitation are too severe, then it's ultimately bad for the less powerful minority because the powerful majority will simply leave and go somewhere else, taking opportunities with them.

Politics is fundamentally about deciding what to do about achieving a balance between these two extremes to avoid these two disastrous outcomes. It comes down to one question: To what degree should this exploitation be limited by government?

We can put this a different way to make the concept I'm getting at more clear. Suppose we call this system of exploitation a game of kickball. The ultimate goal of government is to make sure that the game as a whole keeps going because without it, everyone is fucked. If we don't regulate the game enough, the weak flip shit and blow up the game. If we regulate the game too much, the powerful take their ball and go home.

Government is here to make sure that neither of those outcomes happen. It's also influenced by both groups of people.

The powerful are in the numerical minority, so they can influence government policy by things like lobbying and strategy. The weak are in the numerical majority, so they can influence government policy by things like voting.

It's like walking on a balance beam. One side is pulling you in one direction, the other side is pulling you in the other direction, and the net result is hopefully that you remain stable on the beam as a result. If one side pulls you too far one way or the other, that's the end of walking on the balance beam.

Maintaining this balance so that we don't fall off of either side is what I support and believe in.

[MadMojoMonkey]

One of the founding principles of our government is that human beings are born with rights and that rights are not given by the government. Instead, rights are protected by the government and are only limited in situations where it's necessary to avoid a person infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Goddamn you can turn a phrase.

***
The abortion debate in the US has been stagnant for over 100 years. The lines haven't changed. The arguments haven't changed. The realities haven't changed. There are old-ass black and white Hollywood movies about abortion (well, at least one).
People take their sides, then defend them with whatever they like. IMO, it's a medical issue and I'm not a doctor or a woman, so my opinion and the opinions of non-doctors and non-women is pretty much just mansplaining.

Are you telling me that *intelligent* people on the Right are for real worked up about abortion?
C'mon. The history is clear. The primal emotions on both sides are fundamentally human. Both sides keep making the same points, generation after generation.

***
Note that exactly $0 Planned Parenthood receives from the gov't goes toward abortions.

They do a lot more than just abortions, and the state funding they receive is isolated from all their abortion-related services.

They do "man stuff" too. It's not a women's clinic or anything. It's more like a sexual health clinic.

[OngBonga]

I kinda don't think anyone who's neither a medical doctor nor a woman should be given a microphone on this issue.

Without wanting to dip my feet into the abortion debate, I don't agree with this. Abortion affects men too. Every child, born and unborn, has a father. That father has a right to an opinion.

I keep my opinion to myself on this matter because abortion does not affect me, but it's not my place to decide who can speak out on this subject.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Without wanting to dip my feet into the abortion debate, I don't agree with this. Abortion affects men too. Every child, born and unborn, has a father. That father has a right to an opinion.

I keep my opinion to myself on this matter because abortion does not affect me, but it's not my place to decide who can speak out on this subject.

No one said anything about anyone's right to speak out on anything.

All I said was that no one has the right to my time when expressing their opinions.


FYI, one of my ex's got an abortion of what would have been my child, and she did so despite my adamant arguing for her not to.
And of course I am entitled to my opinion on that matter, but NOT AS MUCH AS SHE IS. Men's opinions matter, but it's not a 50/50 weighting between each partner's opinion on this. Call it 55/45 or 75/25 or whatever. Ultimately, it's the woman's choice, IMO.

But, again, grain of salt. I'm neither a medical doctor nor a woman, and IMO, this issue is akin to the balance spoon was describing. The divide of opinions and ferocity of opinions on both sides of the abortion issue are intense, and unchanging for at least a century. Given that, I think the best move is to maintain a balance. Keep abortions legal, regulated, and allow the anti-abortion groups to speak their opinions and protest and push for more regulations where they see fit. Allow the anti-abortion groups the same and let the line between them jiggle over time.

The passions are just too high to allow either side to "win" on this. It is what it is, IMO.

[Poopadoop]

Back in #MEGA news...I don't even know where to start.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/north...f-man-2230890/

[spoonitnow]

Back in #MEGA news...I don't even know where to start.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/north...f-man-2230890/

That looks really cool and also simultaneously a complete waste of money.

[Poopadoop]

That looks really cool and also simultaneously a complete waste of money.

That's just scratching the surface. Here's some of what's idiotic about it:

It's about 50x times as much tunnel as the Channel tunnel between England and France and would carry a fraction of the freight.

The Irish Sea is full of unexploded bombs from WWII, so there's no guarantee the construction wouldn't set one off, which would be a bad thing for the constructions crews working there, and possibly turn the whole thing into an giant drain sewer for the ocean.

The port in Scotland it's linking to has only limited infrastructure leading out of it, so no sensible way to get enough traffic running through it to make it worthwhile having there, unless you dump a bunch more money into building up that infra.

The Irish already told him they weren't interested. He can't make them agree to it (Ireland is outside of the UK), so there's no point after that in even talking about it, not that there ever was a point in the first place. And his own advisers are calling it things like "batshit crazy" and "nuts."

But, it looks like he's going to go ahead and spend a few hundred mill on some feasibility studies anyways. He actually has a history of ordering these kind of pie-in-sky project feasibility studies to be done when he was mayor of London. They never come to anything and were just a big waste of money.

Seriously, they should just put the guy in a room with a lego set and a toy train or something.

[OngBonga]

All I said was that no one has the right to my time when expressing their opinions.

Fair enough, but they have a right to speak publicly about it. Whether you choose to listen is another matter.

And of course I am entitled to my opinion on that matter, but NOT AS MUCH AS SHE IS.

This is pretty much where I am on the debate. Ultimately it's her choice, not his. But if someone disagrees with that opinion, I'm not going to butt heads with them. If someone thinks it should be a 50-50 decision, that's their opinion and they have the right to air it. If someone thinks abortion should be illegal, that's their opinion and they have the right to air it.

You said "I kinda don't think anyone who's neither a medical doctor nor a woman should be given a microphone on this issue."

When you use the word "microphone" I interpret that as a public platform. This is what I disagree with. People are entitled to a public opinion, regardless of gender or occupation.

[Poopadoop]

Oh, and Imma gonna go out on a limb here and suggest there's a remote possibility that the feasibility studies he's ordering will be carried out by party cronies.

[OngBonga]

I laughed when I saw reports of plans for these tunnels. Then I went to google maps and imagined it was my decision and I got to decide where the tunnels went. It's fascinating.

I mean, there is absolutely no need for two tunnels to NW England. Heysham and Liverpool are connected by the M6 motorway and are an hour apart; even if this idea had merit you only need to pick one of those routes.

and possibly turn the whole thing into an giant drain sewer for the ocean.

lol this is just plain daft. Where's the water going to drain? You're not a believer in hollow earth are you?

Oh, and Imma gonna go out on a limb here and suggest there's a remote possibility that the feasibility studies he's ordering will be carried out by party cronies.

This isn't daft though. You've nailed it right here. Corruption, not incompetence.

[OngBonga]

The idea that tunneling will cause bombs at the bottom of the sea to explode does seem daft though. They should be tunneling well below the bottom of the sea. If they trigger a bomb, then they were already pretty fucked because they must be far too close to the water.

[OngBonga]

and possibly turn the whole thing into an giant drain sewer for the ocean.

Ok I thought about it for more than three seconds and I see what you're saying here. Not as daft as I initially assumed.

[Poopadoop]

Dude, you just had a crack at me in the other thread for arguing with you too much and the next thing you do is come over here and argue with me.

Have you ever heard the expression "It takes two to have a fight?" Maybe think about how your own behavour contributes to this thing you claim to be trying to hard to avoid.

[spoonitnow]

Have you ever heard the expression, "If you want to fight, then stick your head up my ass and fight for air?"

[OngBonga]

So every time I respond to something you say and comment in a way you deem to be "arguing" you're going to play this card, right?

How about you think about what I said and respond to that. Why would bombs go off because they're making tunnels? If the answer to that is obvious and I'm dumb for even asking it, then I can understand why you might think I'm just arguing for the sake of it.

I'm moaning at you because you argue with me when I talk about crypto with keith, you argue with me when I tiptoe around a story in a way to ensure I'm not making direct accusations about someone who is likely to soon be facing a court even though it's obvious what I'm getting at, you're just arguing for the sake of it.

I'm not. Your comment seems daft to me. Maybe it's me being daft. Help me understand who's daft here.

[spoonitnow]

Why would bombs go off because they're making tunnels?

They have to build through this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort%27s_Dyke

The TL;DR is that the UK has dumped a ridiculous amount of shit there for a really long time. We're talking metric tons of radioactive waste along with several thousand metric tons of rockets, bombs and whatever else. Explosions have already happened there before that were mistaken as earthquakes. It's like trying to build a turnip farm on a massive mine field.

I remember reading about Beaufort's Dyke for some class in college, but I can't remember what. All kinds of crazy shit has happened with that like explosives washing up on the beaches of the Isle of Man.

[OngBonga]

So I am being daft. Well, kind of, it's not obvious, but it's a problem for sure.

Seems crazy this would even be discussed as a realistic project then given this problem.

This is probably the kind of thing they teach to kids everywhere except the UK, like Tiananmen Square in China.

[Poopadoop]

I also heard that the seabed there is solid granite whereas the seabed in the Channel is sedimentary. So basically, have fun blasting your way through that for 100 years, 500 sticks of dynamite and 50 feet at a time.

The giant roundabout under the Isle of Man is fucking hilarious too. I can imagine him telling them to make it 100 miles wide or something.

I don't know the details of all the goofy projects he dreamt up while he was Mayor of London that never happened. Something about a bridge and a floating airport is all I can remember.

It'd be funnier if he wasn't in charge of the entire country. Actually, that is kinda funny too.

[Poopadoop]

£43m for a bridge they never built.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_Bridge

[Poopadoop]

The guy's fucking obsessed with unrealistic building plans.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...ppen-1.4182384

[Poopadoop]

Oh, here's the airport - "Boris Island"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...t-boris-island

[OngBonga]

The giant roundabout aspect seemed to me like nonsense. But at the same time, fascinating. Imagine if they did it. It would be a remarkable engineering achievement, comparable to putting robots on Mars. I'd be pretty fucking impressed.

At the risk of pushing a button, I wouldn't give a huge amount of credit to the Guardian when it comes to political criticism of Conservative policy. An airport on the estuary is a reasonable idea. I mean they're in a lose-lose situation here. Heathrow badly needs expanding to meet demand. But that means compulsory purchase orders for entire villages, and green belt land being covered in tarmac. But if they try to come up with a solution, people find a reason to use it as a political weapon. It's "costly, risky and a potential failure"... is that really the best they've got? Heathrow's owners would have to be compensated? Just let them sell the land, that is literally worth billions.

Tokyo airport is built on the sea. It's not batshit like a roundabout under the Isla of Man. It's a logical solution to the problems airports cause communities.

[spoonitnow]

I think Brexit was a really good idea. The idea that the long-term benefits of nationalism should outweigh the short-term disadvantages from the change is not unfounded.

However, I think the chances of this working in practice died years ago. There are too many assholes there now who don't care at all about maintaining the culture, history and identity of the United Kingdom. You can't have national policy based around nationalism on a macro level without it being backed up on the micro level.

It would be like building a house with lumber that looks find on the outside but that's rotten on the inside. It just can't hold up what it's supposed to hold up even if it looks good on the surface.

[OngBonga]

The only part of United Kingdom culture under attack really is English culture. England has already become very much multicultural. Scottish and Welsh culture is still strong, but English culture is something that many outsiders seem to think we should be ashamed of. That comes with the territory of being historically dominant, both domestically and globally. Of course, like probably every culture on the planet, there are sources of shame and pride. That's human nature, people do shitty and wonderful things.

Nationalism has become a dirty word, used as a derogatory term for dominant cultures. But it's funny how the "oppressed" culture can have a brand of nationalism that's palatable. It's even funnier that they don't like being called nationalists. Boris Johnson has got into the habit of calling the SNP the Scottish Nationalist Party (It's National), and it winds them up, even though they are nationalists. He's clearly trolling them. This side of Boris I like, the guy has a sense of humour.

I'm not even proud to be English, it's not like nationalism to me is an exaggerated sense of pride of your own culture. Nationalism to me is knowing who I am.

[spoonitnow]

Yeah I should have specifically said English culture. That's my bad.

[Poopadoop]

What are the long-term benefits of nationalism, in your opinion?

To me, the positive possiblities of nationalism relate to achieving a sense of national community whereby a vast majority of the people feel at home, feel they are treated fairly and are generally trusting of other members of the community who they don't know personally (within reason). The citizens here are proud of their country and it's achievements while still acknowledging it's mistakes and areas in which it could use improvement, iow they accept that no country is perfect, even their own, and so they reject any notions of superiority, infallibiliity or exceptionalism. They favour those living in their own country, but they still care about those who live outside its borders.

I don't see how Brexit helps us to achieve any of those goals. It has split the country cleanly in half and encouraged separatist movements in UK member nations. The kind of nationalism many hard-core Brexters favour does not include acknoweldging any of the country's past mistakes by (say) pulling down a statue of a slave-trader.

[spoonitnow]

What are the long-term benefits of nationalism, in your opinion?

Survival of a culture. Higher rates of trust. Lower unemployment. Higher GDP per capita. Most of the positive stuff that happens in Japan.

But I can already tell you're one of those statue pullers like people who feel shame for their skin color rah rah or w/e, so I'm not going to get in a back and forth with you.

Tell me more about this undergrown tunnel deathtrap and other dumb civil works projects Boris what's his face has wanted to do.

[OngBonga]

Tell me more about this undergrown tunnel deathtrap and other dumb civil works projects Boris what's his face has wanted to do.

haha

[Poopadoop]

Survival of a culture. Higher rates of trust. Lower unemployment. Higher GDP per capita. Most of the positive stuff that happens in Japan.

There's some advantages to having a genetically and culturally homogenous population for sure, if that's what you mean. That's hard to achieve in some countries for obvious reasons. I don't think nationalism is going to make the US or the UK genetically or culturally homogenous.

But I can already tell you're one of those statue pullers like people who feel shame for their skin color rah rah

Well that's not really the idea, though I hear that excuse from a lot of statue lickers.

If there's something bad my country did in the past I generally don't want a bunch of monuments around celebrating it. Your monuments should reflect your current values. You can put your history with its outdated values in museums and books.

You don't have to pull the statues down with an angry mob and a bunch of ropes like it's Saddam. Just quietly take them down and put them away somewhere.

Tell me more about this undergrown tunnel deathtrap and other dumb civil works projects Boris what's his face has wanted to do.

Last summer he had this bright idea that we should do 100 million covid tests a week, about two for every man woman and child in the UK. Every week, whether you need it or not. Got a cough? Get a test. Stub your toe? Get a test. Already have covid? Get a test. Dead and buried in the ground? Get a test. Test test test until you're blue in the face.

Obviously we never came anywhere close to that number. I think about 1.5 million a week was the most we've ever done.

"Operation Moonshot" it was called. Fuck me.

[spoonitnow]

Well that's not really the idea, though I hear that excuse from a lot of statue lickers.

Haha

Last summer he had this bright idea that we should do 100 million covid tests a week, about two for every man woman and child in the UK. Every week, whether you need it or not. Got a cough? Get a test. Stub your toe? Get a test. Already have covid? Get a test. Dead and buried in the ground? Get a test. Test test test until you're blue in the face.

Obviously we never came anywhere close to that number. I think about 1.5 million a week was the most we've ever done.

"Operation Moonshot" it was called. Fuck me.

Okay that's funny as fuck. With that said, aside from the entire logistical nightmare and waste of resources, it would definitely cut down the number of cases.

It seems like that whole "aside from the entire logistical nightmare and waste of resources" thing is his Achilles' heel.

[Poopadoop]

Okay that's funny as fuck. With that said, aside from the entire logistical nightmare and waste of resources, it would definitely cut down the number of cases.

It seems like that whole "aside from the entire logistical nightmare and waste of resources" thing is his Achilles' heel.

Yeah the ideas themselves don't sound that bad until you actually stop and think about them for three or four seconds.

They're the kind of ideas someone comes up with when they're really stoned, writes down, then looks at the next day and goes "Oh wait, that's fucking retarded."

[OngBonga]

I don't see how Brexit helps us to achieve any of those goals.

It doesn't. It's just there's a high correlation between those who value sovereignty with those who have a sense of belonging to a certain culture.

[Poopadoop]

To take the statue argument further, statues of Churchill and Nelson are fine, 'cause they led the country in wars where we were the defenders. It's hard to argue fighting Nazis is something to be ashamed of. Was Churchill flawed? Absolutely. He was a complete racist, but that's not what we're celebrating him for. The statues are him in his WWII outfit doing his anti-Hitler thing. If there was a statue where he's bending some Indian guy over and sodomizing him, then yeah take it down.

But, in Bristol thee was a statue of a guy named Colston, who made a fortune as a slave-trader. The statue was there because he helped make the port wealthy in the 1800s. Is the accumulation of wealth through the exploitation of black people something to celebrate? Not really. Take it down, put it in a museum.

There's some I feel pretty ambivalent about. General Lee would be one. Was he on the wrong side of history? Yeah, but he wasn't going around mistreating black people or saying racist shit afaik. He was just a kickass general. I guess you could say he associated himself with slavery when he could have stayed in the Union Army, so on the balance his statues should probably come down. But imo he's not at the top of the list or anything. IOW, I wouldn't be pissed if I went to Dixie and saw a statue of RE Lee. But Nathaniel Forrest? Fuck that, that guy was basically the KKK in a different uniform.

[spoonitnow]

To take the statue argument further, statues of Churchill and Nelson are fine, 'cause they led the country in wars where we were the defenders. It's hard to argue fighting Nazis is something to be ashamed of. Was Churchill flawed? Absolutely. He was a complete racist, but that's not what we're celebrating him for. The statues are him in his WWII outfit doing his anti-Hitler thing. If there was a statue where he's bending some Indian guy over and sodomizing him, then yeah take it down.

But, in Bristol thee was a statue of a guy named Colston, who made a fortune as a slave-trader. The statue was there because he helped make the port wealthy in the 1800s. Is the accumulation of wealth through the exploitation of black people something to celebrate? Not really. Take it down, put it in a museum.

All of that is fine.

For clarity, I don't give a shit about statues either way. I've never walked up to a statue and been like oh man this statue is the shit, I'm so glad it's here.

There's some I feel pretty ambivalent about. General Lee would be one. Was he on the wrong side of history? Yeah, but he wasn't going around mistreating black people or saying racist shit afaik. He was just a kickass general. I guess you could say he associated himself with slavery when he could have stayed in the Union Army, so on the balance his statues should probably come down. But imo he's not at the top of the list or anything. IOW, I wouldn't be pissed if I went to Dixie and saw a statue of RE Lee. But Nathaniel Forrest? Fuck that, that guy was basically the KKK in a different uniform.

Lee's choice wasn't about slavery. Lee associated himself with Virginia instead of the United States. Having a primary association with your state over the US was the most common sentiment at the time since the states were seen sort of like countries in the EU are seen now. If Virginia wouldn't have left the Union, he would have stayed and led the Union army.

Forrest is one of those that gets a lot of people tripped up because it's really easy to get just enough information to draw a bad conclusion about him. This gets into a discussion of things like the difference between the first Klan and the second Klan, the difference in goals/tactics/makeup, why Forrest disbanded the Klan (ie: they weren't doing what they were supposed to) and so on that foreigners probably don't give a shit about and that I don't care to type out. The TL;DR version is that the shit he did during the war (ie: Fort Willow) was much worse than anything he did or organized while leading the Klan.

There's a lot of good about Forrest that gets ignored in all of that. Unless I'm mistaken, he's the only man to go from private to general inside of a single war in written history. He also had an intuition about strategy that was one of the greatest to ever be known.

All of that aside, if you haven't seen videos online of these morons maiming and/or killing themselves while pulling down statues and whatever, it's funny as hell.

[Poopadoop]

Lee's choice wasn't about slavery. Lee associated himself with Virginia instead of the United States. Having a primary association with your state over the US was the most common sentiment at the time since the states were seen sort of like countries in the EU are seen now. If Virginia wouldn't have left the Union, he would have stayed and led the Union army.

I understand that about the US in those days, and there were very few generals who were from the South and stayed in the Union Army. So while I'm no expert on Lee, my sense is he was more loyal to Virginia than he was to slavery, if he even cared about slavery at all.

Forrest is one of those that gets a lot of people tripped up because it's really easy to get just enough information to draw a bad conclusion about him. This gets into a discussion of things like the difference between the first Klan and the second Klan, the difference in goals/tactics/makeup, why Forrest disbanded the Klan (ie: they weren't doing what they were supposed to) and so on that foreigners probably don't give a shit about and that I don't care to type out. The TL;DR version is that the shit he did during the war (ie: Fort Willow) was much worse than anything he did or organized while leading the Klan.

There's a lot of good about Forrest that gets ignored in all of that. Unless I'm mistaken, he's the only man to go from private to general inside of a single war in written history. He also had an intuition about strategy that was one of the greatest to ever be known.

Well yeah, I don't know much about him either. He still sounds like a bit of a cunt though, even if he was good at war.

All of that aside, if you haven't seen videos online of these morons maiming and/or killing themselves while pulling down statues and whatever, it's funny as hell.

gonna take a look.

[Poopadoop]

Oh, and about the testing. About a month ago they did what was called "surge testing", where they pick an area of the country where there's been a lot of cases lately and try to test everyone to see how prevalent it is. A lady came to my door, gave me a test kit, and came back later in the day to pick it up. I stuck the thing up my nose and swirled it around like I was digging for gold, filled in all the paperwork and followed all the instructions on how to put it in the vial, etc.

I'm still waiting for them to tell me the result. It's been a fucking month. I mean obviously the chance I had it are low 'cause I never had any symptoms, but what was the point of mass-testing people and then not telling them what their result was?

Possible I just fell through the cracks or something, dunno - should talk to my neighbors I suppose.

[spoonitnow]

Man I've been reading more about ol Boris, and holy shit this guy is great. He's so fucking entertaining.

[OngBonga]

In case you haven't seen him barge over a goofy kid playing rugby...

[spoonitnow]

Fuck them kids rofl

[Poopadoop]

To be fair, I don't think he was trying to deliberately run the kid over. I think he's just too fat to negotiate his way around anything.

Still, if you're playing rugby with a bunch of 10 year olds, you'd think somewhere in the front of your mind would be to try your hardest not to squash any of them like a grape.

[OngBonga]

I'd like to see world leaders fight. I reckon Boris would surprise a few people. You gotta be tough to play rugby at boys schools if you don't want your arse to be regularly fucked.

He'd lose in a fight to Putin, obviously, but I'd love to see him slap Merkel about a bit.

[spoonitnow]

I'd like to see world leaders fight. I reckon Boris would surprise a few people. You gotta be tough to play rugby at boys schools if you don't want your arse to be regularly fucked.

He'd lose in a fight to Putin, obviously, but I'd love to see him slap Merkel about a bit.

lol what imagery

[OngBonga]

There's always at least one kid in these schools that has a funny walk and kills himself aged 19.

[spoonitnow]

Yeah we had a number of students banging teachers and other staff in our schools too. It happens a lot more than people think (even if they think it happens quite a bit).

[Poopadoop]

Fisherman looking for a job in the EU after Brexit. #MEGA

[CoccoBill]

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/natio...de/january2021

Only £5bn losses in exports in a month, less than I expected.

[OngBonga]

#democracy

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/03/catalonia-the-eus-secret-shame/

My very real enthusiasm for the European Union had survived decades of sometimes bruising encounters with reality before being fatally holed by the strong political support given by European Council, Commission and Parliament to the brutal and violent suppression of Catalonia’s independence referendum. Subsequently, while I still view membership of the single market as beyond argument beneficial, I have been an enthusiast for membership of the customs union and EEA/EFTA, but agnostic on full EU membership and the political union.


This was reinforced on Monday with the shameful vote of the European Parliament to strip the legal immunity of those Catalan Members of the European Parliament in exile, to assist Spain in its efforts to extradite them to add to its list of Catalan political prisoners. There are today nine Catalan political leaders already enduring lengthy sentences in Spanish prisons for the “crime” of wishing their nation to be independent and attempting to hold a democratic vote on the idea. These are the EU’s highest profile political prisoners. Not even the much reviled Viktor Orban or Andrzej Duda treat democratic opponents in this way.


None of this has cowed the Catalans. The recent elections to the regional parliament resulted in the largest ever vote for pro-Independence parties, who had a clear majority of votes as well as seats. Part of the democratic expression of Catalan will has of course been the elections to the European Parliament, and nothing could send a clearer message than the decision of Catalan voters to elect three MEPs in exile whom the Spanish state wishes to jail for wanting a free Catalonie, which it calls “sedition”. Those are former Catalan President Carles Puigdemont MEP, former health minister Antoni Comin MEP and former education minister Clara Ponsati MEP, who now lives in Scotland.


The vote of the European Parliament to remove the legal immunity of these MEPs is the more shocking because this is precisely the kind of political circumstance in which the immunity is intended to protect MEPs.


I was interested to see which MEP’s had voted to lift the immunity, but on the European Parliament website I could find only a the result of the votes, with no indication how individual members voted. There were separate votes for each Catalan MEP and the results were all broadly similar to the vote on Carles Puigdemont MEP- 400 for, 248 against and 45 abstentions. I was genuinely shocked to discover that the reason that I could not see who voted which way, was that the vote was in fact secret.


When you are going to do something shameful, then it is best to do it in private. Parliaments do not generally take secret votes, for fundamental reasons of democracy – how can you know whether to vote for an MEP if you do not know how he votes in parliament? Nor is secret voting mandated in the official guide to this procedure for lifting an MEP’s immunity.


We do know that the move to lift immunity was initiated by the Spanish government and actively promoted by the Eastern European far right parties. I do not expect it to have practical effect, as judicial authorities in Belgium and Scotland have to date not accepted Spanish extradition requests on quite other grounds. But this shabby, grubby behaviour of EU parliamentarians in seeking, secretly and furtively, to enable further persecution of the Catalans, is another chapter in a truly shameful history for the EU.