Brexit - Page 7 - Talk About Marriage
Politics This is the place to discuss politics

User Tag List
Deejo

 80Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #91 of 162 (permalink) Old 12-15-2019, 08:49 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: California
Posts: 3,416
Re: Brexit

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustTheWife View Post
I think the cultures here in the US are much more disparate than you portray. But more importantly, the EU is not the US federal government and not even close. The EU is a far looser union than the USA. Not even close.

Others have also raised the point that Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland also have little sovereignty as part of the UK. Hard to argue against the general concept of ceding sovereignty without addressing that one.

Many here are arguing against "giving up sovereignty" or "having your laws and your life dictated by someone else" is bad in itself. Easy argument to make but ignores the fact that being part of a wider whole is a very common and well accepted concept. Doesn't mean it's always right of course, but in itself it's a weak argument.
It is a problem with the debate that there is an avoidence of specifics. We can see in this thread that my requests for specifics regarding what is proposed and what specific laws are objected to and how the proposal for Brexit will be better are ignored. That really should be the starting point.

Mr The Other is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 162 (permalink) Old 12-15-2019, 02:20 PM
Member
 
AandM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Devil went down to Georgia
Posts: 744
Re: Brexit

Quote:
Originally Posted by uhtred View Post
it is difficult pretending to be human.

The discussion started with whether we should use our military to defend Europe (check the start of that part of the thread). Do you think fewer total people (US and other) would die if we waited for Europe to be conquered and then for our enemies to attack us directly? It seems to me that stopping aggression early rather than late is a better policy .

I'm certainly not in favor of all, or even most of or foreign policy, but abandoning Europe doesn't seem like a good move to me.

Middle east is more complicated. We need to choose carefully who we defend there and I don't think we are making good choices.
I apologize for the snipe. It was uncalled for.

How about Europe setting about defending itself? NATO was founded, to quote Lord Ismay, “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” It was made to deal with a world that has since moved on. Who are we abandoning them to? Russia? Let's see:


NATO without the US - Pop:590 million | GDP: $20 trillion | Active Military: 3.6 million | Reserves:3.75 million | Military Budget: $310 billion
Russia - Pop:143 million | GDP: $2.1 trillion | Active Military: .77 million | Reserves: 2 million | Military Budget: $69 billion

Russia is a regional power only. Hell, to get their one tiny aircraft carrier from one port to another, they mostly have to tow it.

“If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to.” Dorothy Parker
AandM is offline  
post #93 of 162 (permalink) Old 12-16-2019, 12:40 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 7,929
Re: Brexit

I'm not sure how much of a threat Russia is - and I mean that quite literally. They did liberate? absorb? conquer? crimea - and are working on Ukraine. They have been making heavy use of social media warfare - quite effectively (I'm not talking about supporting some candidate or other, but about creating discord and division in the US, UK and probably rest of Europe)

I don't know if they are an actual threat to Europe. Maybe not by conventional means, but NATO does seem to be falling apart, and Russia has made great gains in the middle east recently.

The other wildcard is Russia's vast nuclear arsenal. Nukes are somehow left out of peoples calculations of modern politics, but they are still out there. If the US pulls out of Europe, might Russia gamble that we wouldn't end the world in retaliation for their use of tactical nukes in Europe?

Europe's big economic advantage these days isn't military spending its healthcare - they are spending about 1/2 per person what the US is, and in the US, >$2T/year is draining us dry. Sadly the helthcare monster is too big and too powerful to kill.

If we are going to keep a large army, I'd prefer to keep them outside of the US - they aren't of any use inside the country right now, but I"m not sure we want to downsize the military very much. China's power is growing - they don't seem to be taking the military route - for the moment, but if the US starts looking weak, I don't want to bet that their policies won't change .


Quote:
Originally Posted by AandM View Post
I apologize for the snipe. It was uncalled for.

How about Europe setting about defending itself? NATO was founded, to quote Lord Ismay, “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” It was made to deal with a world that has since moved on. Who are we abandoning them to? Russia? Let's see:


NATO without the US - Pop:590 million | GDP: $20 trillion | Active Military: 3.6 million | Reserves:3.75 million | Military Budget: $310 billion
Russia - Pop:143 million | GDP: $2.1 trillion | Active Military: .77 million | Reserves: 2 million | Military Budget: $69 billion

Russia is a regional power only. Hell, to get their one tiny aircraft carrier from one port to another, they mostly have to tow it.

Last edited by uhtred; 12-16-2019 at 12:41 AM. Reason: typeo
uhtred is offline  
 
post #94 of 162 (permalink) Old 12-16-2019, 11:11 AM
Member
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 11,242
Re: Brexit

Quote:
Originally Posted by NextTimeAround View Post
This country has outgrown the electoral college. It was started so that slaveowners could count their non voting slaves --3/5 of a vote for every slave man towards federal elections. Seems pretty grim.

Trump lost the popular vote. He is not doing the will of the people.
Completely wrong in many ways.

The electoral college was developed to prevent a few high population areas from dominating the election. It was designed balance in the interests of the lower population states while still preserving some measure of popular vote.

The 3/5ths you're referring to was also for the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Representation in the House of Representatives was initially based on a proportion each state's population was of the total national population. Therefore slave states would have higher representation if they got to count their slaves, but northern (white european males) didn't want slaves to be counted at all which would reduce southern representation.

Thus the 3/5ths compromise. By agreeing to this the south was brought into the new union. If the north had demanded no counting of slaves at all, the south would probably not joined in to the USA and would have started their own country.

So the 3/5ths compromise was good for slaves by reducing the influence of slave states compared to what the slave owner
Thor is offline  
post #95 of 162 (permalink) Old 12-16-2019, 11:45 AM
Member
 
OnTheFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,780
Re: Brexit

The electoral college prevents the tyranny of the majority.

It works, as intended by the Founders.

It needs to be enshrined.
OnTheFly is offline  
post #96 of 162 (permalink) Old 12-16-2019, 12:05 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Not in the USA
Posts: 927
Re: Brexit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr The Other View Post
It is a problem with the debate that there is an avoidence of specifics. We can see in this thread that my requests for specifics regarding what is proposed and what specific laws are objected to and how the proposal for Brexit will be better are ignored. That really should be the starting point.
I don't agree. I might object to the principle of laws being set by the EU, without having any specific laws passed so far that I object to.

All sorts of obvious analogies could be made. But essentially, even if the current EU government has not misused their powers, which is of course debatable either way, it is still legitimate to object to their having those powers, because a future regime could be of a very different political stance.
Laurentium is offline  
post #97 of 162 (permalink) Old 12-16-2019, 12:12 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,798
Re: Brexit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor View Post
Completely wrong in many ways.

The electoral college was developed to prevent a few high population areas from dominating the election. It was designed balance in the interests of the lower population states while still preserving some measure of popular vote.

The 3/5ths you're referring to was also for the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Representation in the House of Representatives was initially based on a proportion each state's population was of the total national population. Therefore slave states would have higher representation if they got to count their slaves, but northern (white european males) didn't want slaves to be counted at all which would reduce southern representation.

Thus the 3/5ths compromise. By agreeing to this the south was brought into the new union. If the north had demanded no counting of slaves at all, the south would probably not joined in to the USA and would have started their own country.

So the 3/5ths compromise was good for slaves by reducing the influence of slave states compared to what the slave owner
There are a couple of ironies here. Women couldn't vote at that time as well. But their population made no difference to the number of votes in that state. there is something
malicious about counting someone's vote while not letting them vote.

I have not studied ante bellum south to have a strong opinion of what might have happened to it. It had very little industry so it depended on its agriculture to a large degree. Could it have diversified before economic ruin? One concern I do have is if southern states were to break off today, it very well could a slave country again.

the bolded just never should have been.

Here's an article about some of the more specific and malignant details slavery and slave economics: https://medium.com/the-aambc-journal...u-6704e8b152a4 and how law and policy structured it.
NextTimeAround is online now  
post #98 of 162 (permalink) Old 12-16-2019, 12:31 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,434
Re: Brexit

Quote:
Originally Posted by NextTimeAround View Post
There are a couple of ironies here. Women couldn't vote at that time as well. But their population made no difference to the number of votes in that state. there is something
malicious about counting someone's vote while not letting them vote.

I have not studied ante bellum south to have a strong opinion of what might have happened to it. It had very little industry so it depended on its agriculture to a large degree. Could it have diversified before economic ruin? One concern I do have is if southern states were to break off today, it very well could a slave country again.

the bolded just never should have been.

Here's an article about some of the more specific and malignant details slavery and slave economics: https://medium.com/the-aambc-journal...u-6704e8b152a4 and how law and policy structured it.
Oh my stars, seriously?
karole is offline  
post #99 of 162 (permalink) Old 12-16-2019, 12:34 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,798
Re: Brexit

Quote:
Originally Posted by karole View Post
Oh my stars, seriously?
yes. Human trafficking and slavery is increasing everywhere in the world.

the couple of times I landed in chicago's O'Hare airport, I saw posters on how to identify human trafficking in one's own neighborhood.

the noose is tightening worldwide.
NextTimeAround is online now  
post #100 of 162 (permalink) Old 12-16-2019, 12:35 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: California
Posts: 3,416
Re: Brexit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laurentium View Post
I don't agree. I might object to the principle of laws being set by the EU, without having any specific laws passed so far that I object to.

All sorts of obvious analogies could be made. But essentially, even if the current EU government has not misused their powers, which is of course debatable either way, it is still legitimate to object to their having those powers, because a future regime could be of a very different political stance.
...but, it does matter.

The argument is often made that the UK is not independent. That is not true clearly.

We arrange laws regarding trade with others, as they need agreement because it is trade. We agree standards generally as it works better that way

It is one thing for UK people to make stuff up, but it is unfair to Americans.

Mr The Other is online now  
post #101 of 162 (permalink) Old 12-16-2019, 12:38 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: California
Posts: 3,416
Re: Brexit

Quote:
Originally Posted by NextTimeAround View Post
There are a couple of ironies here. Women couldn't vote at that time as well. But their population made no difference to the number of votes in that state. there is something
malicious about counting someone's vote while not letting them vote.

I have not studied ante bellum south to have a strong opinion of what might have happened to it. It had very little industry so it depended on its agriculture to a large degree. Could it have diversified before economic ruin? One concern I do have is if southern states were to break off today, it very well could a slave country again.

the bolded just never should have been.

Here's an article about some of the more specific and malignant details slavery and slave economics: https://medium.com/the-aambc-journal...u-6704e8b152a4 and how law and policy structured it.
That is rather silly.
Mr The Other is online now  
post #102 of 162 (permalink) Old 12-16-2019, 01:06 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,798
Re: Brexit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr The Other View Post
That is rather silly.
It is not silly. And it's always a good idea to consider worst case sceanrios.

Back in 2016 when my husband and I were watching the debates, Trump told Clinton that if he were President she would be in jail. I said to my husband, if I were Clinton, I would be very worried. My husband threw at me a plethora you're crazy / paranoid / whatever. He would NEVER do that. .... as if my husband knows Trump better than I do.

Now we have learned two things about Trump that are pertinent to this discussion
1. he has already tried to put Clinton on trial but McGann blocked his efforts. But now he's gone.
2. Trump does not stop pursuing something just because he has been told no. Trump replaced his staff which was the only roadblock to putting people in jail.

My husband has tried to defend himself by saying that he knew that even though Trump wanted to put Clinton in jail that he would be prevented from doing it .......

Ok, but the real change that I have seen (and it's good for our personal relationship, too) is that simply assuming that people will do the right thing does not magically make them do it. After the Civil War black people, mostly men, were kidnapped and forced into labor. That sounds like slavery to me. Even if it was not officially state supported slavery.

To tell someone that they're crazy / silly / whatever simply because you do not want to agree with ugly possibilities does not mean that you are right.

And it's a sign of arrogance as well, Instead of contemplating the possibility of various scenarios were the US to break apart, you are telling me that you are right and that I am wrong. I would say that that's a bit childish.

Last edited by NextTimeAround; 12-16-2019 at 01:10 PM.
NextTimeAround is online now  
post #103 of 162 (permalink) Old 12-16-2019, 01:11 PM
Member
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 11,242
Re: Brexit

Quote:
Originally Posted by NextTimeAround View Post
There are a couple of ironies here. Women couldn't vote at that time as well. But their population made no difference to the number of votes in that state. there is something
malicious about counting someone's vote while not letting them vote.

I have not studied ante bellum south to have a strong opinion of what might have happened to it. It had very little industry so it depended on its agriculture to a large degree. Could it have diversified before economic ruin? One concern I do have is if southern states were to break off today, it very well could a slave country again.

the bolded just never should have been.

Here's an article about some of the more specific and malignant details slavery and slave economics: https://medium.com/the-aambc-journal...u-6704e8b152a4 and how law and policy structured it.
To conflate being a woman in the founding era with being a slave is truly misguided. A woman was represented by elected officials. However, slaves offiucially were not because they were considered the legal property of their owners.

It is important to note that voting rights have always been state regulated. The Constitution did not disenfranchise any group from voting.

Generally, in the founding era women could vote if they were "independent". The concept was that a person who was dependent on another could not vote independently for the greater good of society. For example, most women were housewives. Yes, many also worked at the family business whether it be a farm or a merchant business. But they depended upon their husband, unlike today where many married women have their own independent careers. Thus, a wife in the founding era would have been likely to vote the way her husband told her to because she depended on him for housing and food for her and her children.

But a single adult woman who was independent could vote in many places. She had legitimate interest in the good of society which would then be good for her.

Note also that those who were on government handouts or who were government employees were not allowed to vote in many places at that time, specifically because they could not be expected to vote in the best interests of the general population over their own personal interests. Same thing with slaves, who would only be expected to vote as they were told to (and probably wouldn't actually vote but would have their owners enter votes for them).

One would also expect that wives had sway over their husbands and could influence their votes, whereas slaves would have zero sway over owners' votes.
Thor is offline  
post #104 of 162 (permalink) Old 12-16-2019, 01:41 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,798
Re: Brexit

Quote:
Originally Posted by thor View Post
to conflate being a woman in the founding era with being a slave is truly misguided. some white women do it.

a woman was represented by elected officials. no, they were represented by their husband / family. In fact, it's documented that many well to do women did not care about getting the vote because they could influence through their families. however, slaves offiucially were not because they were considered the legal property of their owners. i do hope that you find that offensive.

it is important to note that voting rights have always been state regulated. The constitution did not disenfranchise any group from voting. i think that is wrong.

generally, in the founding era women could vote if they were "independent". where do get that? the concept was that a person who was dependent on another could not vote independently for the greater good of society. For example, most women were housewives. Yes, many also worked at the family business whether it be a farm or a merchant business. But they depended upon their husband, unlike today where many married women have their own independent careers. Thus, a wife in the founding era would have been likely to vote the way her husband told her to because she depended on him for housing and food for her and her children. women could not vote for federal elections and most state elections before 1920. Some states out west offered the right to vote in the 19th century because they were desperate for women to move there.

but a single adult woman who was independent could vote in many places. before 1920? Before the civil war? What state would that be? I know that wyoming had its own "ladies night" but you since you speak more authoritatively then perhaps you could name a few states where women could vote before 1920 ......... Before all women could vote in federal elections. she had legitimate interest in the good of society which would then be good for her. oh, really now.

note also that those who were on government handouts or who were government employees were not allowed to vote in many places at that time,are equating those who work for the government with those who are drawing welfare payments? specifically because they could not be expected to vote in the best interests of the general population over their own personal interests. you may want to consider how government employees look out for the rest of us: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...676?yptr=yahoo

same thing with slaves, who would only be expected to vote as they were told to (and probably wouldn't actually vote but would have their owners enter votes for them). i'm sure the plantation ballot box was as rigorously guarded as those ballot boxes that putin uses in his elections.
one would also expect that wives had sway over their husbands and could influence their votes, whereas slaves would have zero sway over owners' votes.
<<<sigh>>>
NextTimeAround is online now  
post #105 of 162 (permalink) Old 12-16-2019, 03:26 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: California
Posts: 3,416
Re: Brexit

Quote:
Originally Posted by NextTimeAround View Post
It is not silly. And it's always a good idea to consider worst case sceanrios.

Back in 2016 when my husband and I were watching the debates, Trump told Clinton that if he were President she would be in jail. I said to my husband, if I were Clinton, I would be very worried. My husband threw at me a plethora you're crazy / paranoid / whatever. He would NEVER do that. .... as if my husband knows Trump better than I do.

Now we have learned two things about Trump that are pertinent to this discussion
1. he has already tried to put Clinton on trial but McGann blocked his efforts. But now he's gone.
2. Trump does not stop pursuing something just because he has been told no. Trump replaced his staff which was the only roadblock to putting people in jail.

My husband has tried to defend himself by saying that he knew that even though Trump wanted to put Clinton in jail that he would be prevented from doing it .......

Ok, but the real change that I have seen (and it's good for our personal relationship, too) is that simply assuming that people will do the right thing does not magically make them do it. After the Civil War black people, mostly men, were kidnapped and forced into labor. That sounds like slavery to me. Even if it was not officially state supported slavery.

To tell someone that they're crazy / silly / whatever simply because you do not want to agree with ugly possibilities does not mean that you are right.

And it's a sign of arrogance as well, Instead of contemplating the possibility of various scenarios were the US to break apart, you are telling me that you are right and that I am wrong. I would say that that's a bit childish.
There are a few reasons why it is unlikely.
- The economy of the Southern states is not based around a high labour, low profit product. Automation aside, the economy of the South is not based around tabacco and cotton in the same way. It would make no economic sense.
- It is two lifetimes away. This means that people do not see it as right, natural and proper anymore. People might want to go hack to the 1950's, but typically no further.
- International pressure. It is two centuries since the British Empire stamped out the slave trade in the North Atlantic. South Africa had international sanctions in the 1970's, it is fair to say it would be economic suicide.
Mr The Other is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on Talk About Marriage, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Important! Your username will be visible to the public next to anything you post and could show up in search engines like Google. If you are concerned about anonymity, PLEASE choose a username that will not be recognizable to anyone you know.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome