I don't think the Trump administration thinks in those long term soft power goals.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
BREXIT |OT2.0| A parade of endless victories for Boris Johnson
- Thread starter Uzzy
- Start date
- Status
England are going to win the Ashes after Shane Warne says the Australian batsmen should hang themselves if they get out to Moeen Ali.
I mean I think regardless of what actually happens in the end, they'd want to make it look like an extension isn't going to happen at this point in time so that the UK doesn't just decide to waste the 6 months it's been given.
Unfortunately I think the government is going to waste it regardless.
Articles written by ARM - loosely speaking - advocating for disaster capitalism. Not sure quite how that would lead to a suspension in and of themselves.
Guy's talked some utter bollocks recently. Not entirely unjustified, considering the UK's actions, mind you.
See his shit-stirring around JRM's Twitter tantrum.
Who does this clown think he is with the paltry 82 million people he represents and the 512 million in the EU who would benefit from no Brexit when THE WILL OF THE 17.4 MILLION PEOPLE clearly said "Brexit means bada-bing, bada-boing but never ask us a second time".
It's Nancy fucking Pelosi. She's been more right about things than you've had hot dinners.
Seriously, the attitude of European posters towards democratic politicians, particulary those like Pelosi who were pushing climate change, health care, gun control and lgbt rights WAY to the left of Obama and the mainstream Democratic Party is ridiculous. It just shows ignorance of what actually happens in the USA.
EU is playing this masterfully, they can continue to poach jobs until May & Co get their act together. Want another delay? Go for it!
I read it as a critics parody post TBH. And ease up on your generalisations, as informed no doubt your average US citizen is on European matters such as those being discussed here.
Americans don't tend to make generalisations about European political leaders - because it would be surprising if they even knew who they were!
I'm grumpy because it's this ridiculous 'the Democratic Party would be a right wing European party' attitude that some of us Europeans have, and it's just so wrong and so ill informed it makes us all look dumber.
we stan a woke centrist queen
And that's just this week, and ignoring her prevaricating on backing up the president trying to incite a death mob on one of her congresswomen
Having read quite a bit around the Darien Scheme (makes the modern financial crisis look like child play), the bolded part is a bit of an understatement. Most of Scotland had bankrolled the Scheme, and the absence of a bailout would have probably led to the disintegration of Scotland as we know it.
If England was keen on securing supreme domination over Scotland it would have allowed Scotland to disintegrate and then simply conquered the disunited squabbling parties that emerged across Scotland. Instead the union assumed Scotland's debts and even unified the crown under James VI of Scotland (James I of the union). A lot of people would now argue that the union was a mistake as it was the starting point for historical complications (e.g. Plantation of Ulster, mostly by Scots) that echo to this day.
Conservative party are in favour of way, way stronger gun control than the Democrats, gay marriage was passed under a Conservative government before Obama, their horrible vision of the future of the NHS is still better than most mainstream Democrats position on healthcare. Climate change I'm not sure about.
Pelosi's 60 Minutes interview has been grossly misunderstood. The average 60 Minutes viewer is not a secret Leftist. It's Pelosi's job to help win elections, and Dems win elections in the US through Big Tent politics that inherently is centrist. Change is for when you're in power.
Hyper-partisanship in the US is far far worse than the UK. Larger electorate, spread through a far larger country, that involves far more political and religious extremism on the Right. Factor in Fox TV as national Republican media - to an extent that Murdoch's papers in the UK can only dream about - and a greater ignorance of the political realities of legislation, and you have a Left/Centre-Left party that finds it harder to win and stay in power. Figure that Obama and the Dems lost power due to racism and an Ebola scare, and realise that Leftist change in the US is harder enact than the UK.
Edit: Also, legislation through the courts is far more of a thing than in the UK. Like, the ACA is facing a court challenge that almost all legal scholars believe is wrong on the facts, and yet it might still kill the ACA.
Edit 2: Don't know why I bother, but I should point out that
is because Bush was in power from 2000 to 2008, and Republicans controlled the legislative houses up until 2006, and Bush controlled the agenda from 2006 to 2008 anyways. And then Obama was dealing with the Great Recession.
Hyper-partisanship in the US is far far worse than the UK. Larger electorate, spread through a far larger country, that involves far more political and religious extremism on the Right. Factor in Fox TV as national Republican media - to an extent that Murdoch's papers in the UK can only dream about - and a greater ignorance of the political realities of legislation, and you have a Left/Centre-Left party that finds it harder to win and stay in power. Figure that Obama and the Dems lost power due to racism and an Ebola scare, and realise that Leftist change in the US is harder enact than the UK.
Edit: Also, legislation through the courts is far more of a thing than in the UK. Like, the ACA is facing a court challenge that almost all legal scholars believe is wrong on the facts, and yet it might still kill the ACA.
Edit 2: Don't know why I bother, but I should point out that
is because Bush was in power from 2000 to 2008, and Republicans controlled the legislative houses up until 2006, and Bush controlled the agenda from 2006 to 2008 anyways. And then Obama was dealing with the Great Recession.
Last edited:
No no no, your meant to say 'Yaas queen' and praise her ability to raise money from corporate interests.
Okay? All political parties in all countries have different political realities to deal with, I'm not denying that, but it's clearly not ridiculous to think that the Democrats are to the right of the Conservative party on a great many issues, whether or not that's as a result of truly held beliefs or realpolitik.
lmao dude you came at me all mad out of nowhere to tell me ACTUALLY NANCY IS GOOD she's pushing to the left before it was popular, and now it's "well she can't push to the left because it's not popular", depsite things like Medicare she's ruled out being super popular
No, it's actually really ridiculous to think that the Dems are to the Right of the Conservative party. Like, honestly.
Super-popular in one state isn't necessarily super-popular in another. Pelosi has to thread the needle on this, given that a lot of things that benefit everyone and are super-popular are also things that racists don't want, because they'll benefit non-whites.
The democratic party would be a right wing European party though. US politics has trended so far right over the past 40 years or so that people don't see that. And when it comes to foreign policy their is very little to chose between the parties, as both are militarist to the bone. I'm an British born American dual national for whatever that's worth, and I've lived in the rural Midwest for several years as well as my filthy north London ways, so I do have some perspective. The democrats are broadly shit, and get away with a lot since their opponents are about 2 steps from full on fascim.
She might be even be the most radical left wing politician of all time, but I am afraid those issues you just mentioned aren't exactly indicators of a left wing politician, at least in some EU countries.
I think say Macron fits all of those and he is hardly writing the next communist manifesto.
Not to be dismissive of her really, she might genuinely be a pretty left wing politician even by the more left leaning EU countries, but it is always hard to tell with American politicians that want to actually get something done, since inevitably they have to first reach the center before they can go left.
I don't quite understand this statement, given that right wing Europe would also be nationalist/racist.
Edit:
I mean, yes, but also, there's a difference between them even in this. Like, Clinton''s intervention in the Balkans is obviously different to Bush/Cheney pushing Afghanistan and Iraq (and Trump pushing destabilisation of Venezuela).
The Democratic party isn't nationalist? It's also certainly supported plenty of racist policies over the years - Clinton's support for mass incarceration for example.
Edit- I see you added a point about foreign policy - the Balkans is rather an exception as it's one of the few US interventions that can be viewed as positive, sure. However, both the Korean and Vietnam wars were started by Democrats, and while the War on an Abstract Concept was certainly Bush's baby, the dems have hardly opposed it, with some honourable exceptions, including Pelosi.
Don't get me wrong, the Republicans are far, far worse over all, and I voted for Hillary in the last election without the slightest hesitation despite not liking her in the least, but we shouldn't have an overly peachy view of the Democrats just because they are not as bad as that bunch of degenerates.
Last edited:
As the party of Not Trump, no it's not nationalist anymore. And indeed the mass incarceration/crime bill stuff is coming back to bite some Dem candidates on the arse.
Basically, the Dem party is now marketing itself as the party of AOC, not Biden.
We'll have to disagree on that one then - all US politics is drenched in the language and culture of US exceptionalism. As to it marketing itself as the party of Cortez, that would be nice. Actually acting like it would be better.
Ohhh, smart comeback. Noice!
Seriously, wander over to PoliERA and read about everyone criticising Biden for his Anita Hill confrimation, Crime Bill vote, touchy-feely hands, and crossing the aisle talk.
Yes, US exceptionalism is rife in US politics. But, to bring it back to the thread topic, every country has that, it's just the US version is commonly accepted. What are Brexit campaigners if not people who think the UK is "special" in exactly the same way that some Americans believe the US is special? In any event, within the confines of US politics, The Dem party is the best choice, given that some in the party do believe in the worth of interventionism as a humanitarian concern, not as imperialism, which is the Republican stance.
Talking about what Clinton did as President when the Republicans controlled the other branches of government is also not really a fair comparison to make, when you can't have a PM of one party working with a parliament controlled by a majority of a different party.
I don't believe for one second that Pelosi would be pushing for the same amount of gun control she is pushing for in the US, were she a leader in the UK. I don't really think anyone here really thinks she would be.
If the Democratic party adopted Labour's most left wing positions, they wouldn't get to implement them, because they're too far away from the status quo. I'm sure if the UK was further left than it is, Labour's positions would be further to the left than they currently are, for much the same reason.
There are different political realities, and you can't take the proposed platform from one country and pretend it isn't shaped by the political reality of that country at the time it was written.
Obama was, as an individual, for gay marriage years before he was for it as a politician, for much the same reason.
isn't this a Brexit thread, if you guys want to argue with Pelosi, there are plenty of threads to do that (I say this, as an American who did not care for her 60 Minutes appearance)
EDIT: there are also structural and cultural differences with American and the UK that make these comparisons very tough, but having followed both UK and US politics fairly closely, it's really hard to compare them in a clean, 1-to-1 manner. Maybe, probably, most elected Democrats would be Labour politicians if they had come up through the UK political system, some might be LibDems, but even that is tough to game out because when you come up in politics largely defines your world view of what is possible. I find this whole discussion to always be rather silly.
EDIT: there are also structural and cultural differences with American and the UK that make these comparisons very tough, but having followed both UK and US politics fairly closely, it's really hard to compare them in a clean, 1-to-1 manner. Maybe, probably, most elected Democrats would be Labour politicians if they had come up through the UK political system, some might be LibDems, but even that is tough to game out because when you come up in politics largely defines your world view of what is possible. I find this whole discussion to always be rather silly.
When they had a filibuster proof majority they came up with an essentially republican health care plan that they negotiated among themselves.
No cross cultural political comparison is going to map perfectly, obviously, which is why we are speaking in general terms. Anyway, sorry for the derail. I'll get back to how bloody terrible UK politics is at the mo.
This is also not really what happened, but guys, Brexit thread.
They were genuinely trying to be bipartisan, and I'll give them some leeway for making that mistake, because as of the previous Democratic president, that was something that was still viable. Obviously the GOP had become something completely different when Obama got elected and that became apparent too late.
SHOCKINGLY, a bunch of ERA posters aren't the ones deciding the way the Democratic party pitch themselves!
Also glad we can finally agree that Nancy should be criticised for her centrist crossing the aisle talk! Toit!
Whoa I just posted that Pelosi statement because it was very relevant to a US/UK trade deal that's been a major talking point, didn't expect it to cause a fuss over Pelosi herself
More than that, they didn't have a filibuster proof majority except for 72 days because of how long it took to seat Franken, and even that was at the whims of Lieberman (a Democrat who lost his primary or was deselected and still won as an independent who caucused with the Dems), as well as other ConservaDems such as Nelson, Lincoln, Baucus... I mean, you would've had a Public Option if it weren't for Lieberman. "Dems had a filibuster proof majority and did a Republican healthcare plan!" is just a gross misrepresentation of what happened in 2009 and what we were up against.
Anyways, Brexit!
(on topic! :D )
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/16/joe-lieberman-barack-obama-us-healthcare
Is it a stretch to see similarities between Lieberman and Corbyn's behaviour during Brexit?
Nah. Parliament is off this week, so I wouldn't expect any movement until after this Easter break or whatever.
Corbyn is a) following Labour's conference plan to the letter and is b) not prime minister.
- Status