What to say is that Trump won’t admit he was played and will continue to praise NK until Kim actually personally attacks him.
As long as Trump keeps praising NK, he can keep up with the fallacious illusion that the North Korean threat no longer exists because he had an one time meeting with Kim.
The Japanese PM is currently sucking up to Trump - here he is presenting the Trump cup to the winner of a sumo competition. While Trump will certainly have enjoyed that, I'm dubious whether it will actually make him treat Japan more favorably. Macron previously tried the same tactic and it didn't seem to do much for France, but I guess Japan is keen to try anything that might help avoid getting drawn into a widening tariff war.
Aside from the tarrifs Japan (& South Korea) are rather concerned about the short range missile tests done by North Korea recently. For obvious reasons Washington tends to react more to the long range ones...
The EU election results for the UK have now all been announced, with the exception of Northern Ireland (which is about 1% of the national vote). This graph summarizes those.
The headlines I've seen are all about the success of the Brexit party. In the sense of seats that's certainly correct - they will probably be the largest party in the new EU parliament and in position to exercise significant influence there if the UK were in fact to remain in the EU. However, their share of the vote was less than I had expected.
The voting could be broken down as follows: Hard Brexit - Brexit party, UKIP 34.9% No Brexit - Lib Dem, Green, Plaid Cymru, SNP, Change UK 40.4% Unclear - Conservative, Labour 23.2%
(there were a number of minor parties with small shares of the vote not reflected above)
Just thinking about it while writing this post, this result does suggest to me there would be a large majority (at least 60% of the vote) for remain if there were another referendum giving a binary choice between no deal or remain. The bits of news I've seen are not suggesting that at the moment, but I suspect that after the euphoria of topping the polls wears off for Nigel Farage, he's going to start getting quite worried. Brexiteers up to now have been arguing strongly that another referendum would be anti-democratic and I expect them to be even more vociferous about that now.
Factors to consider that would affect a future referendum result:
- a large majority of previous Labour or Conservative voters, for whom a desire for Brexit was the main issue, would have been expected to vote for the Brexit party. Many remainers would similarly have gone for the Lib Dems or Greens, but I suspect quite a few would also have felt too much party allegiance for that. I would therefore expect this group to represent a majority for remain in a referendum.
- the turnout for the EU elections was 37%, which is high for an EU election. However, the first Brexit referendum had a turnout of 65% of the voting population and a rerun would probably at least equal that. By far the most consistent voters are older people, so extra voters would skew towards younger people - who tend to be much more supportive of the EU.
- up to this point Labour has never clearly campaigned for remain (their official position in the first referendum was remain, but the support for that was equivocal). After seeing the success of parties with a clear position, they may decide they need to pick one side - and if they do, that would be remain. I wouldn't expect the official Labour view to change many minds, but it could have some effect.
One other point to make is the implication of the traditional parties being squeezed. This is likely to exacerbate the existing polarization, with Conservatives concluding they need to become more hard line to offset the influence of the Brexit Party and Labour going the other way to stop hemorrhaging votes to the Lib Dems. I don't think that will be good for politics if/when the Brexit debate is eventually concluded, but that's going to be years from now whatever happens over the next few months so there's still plenty of time to change I suppose .
Across Europe voters seem to have tended slightly toward the extremes. This may in turn have an effect on the future faces of the EU commision. I shall be sorry to see Tusk go, even if he is needed in Poland.
Tusk: "Don't waste this time."
Conservative Party: *Cloud of fists, broken tables, and mud.*
It's quite likely that the next Conservative leader (which may well be a surprise figure), will very quickly run into the same brick wall as before. Can't No Deal without being forced into GE, can't get through the present deal without some sort of grand coalition that neither main party wants, can't get a 2nd referendum without their own party combusting. Frankly, they'll be hoping Argentina invades the Falklands... (Modi was helped to an election win with some military action recently after all.)
In my opinion the EU 27 will not yet choose to push the UK out though, and will still be willing to offer another transition from October. No single country would be willing to take that step, and the UK's new leader will not yet have many opportunities to really cause trouble by throwing around veto threats.
Stuff
Hard Brexit - Brexit party, UKIP 34.9%
No Brexit - Lib Dem, Green, Plaid Cymru, SNP, Change UK 40.4%
Unclear - Conservative, Labour 23.2%
Looking at vote share change, Brexit gained but UKIP dropped, doesn't that mean that Brexit cannibalized off of UKIP?
ALL of the "No Brexit" parties you list gained. While the "Unclears" suffered.
I suspect that similar to politics here in America, this is an issue that does not allow moderates. You're either for, or against. And you better pick your side and stick with it. Waffling just pisses off everyone.
It's partially a function of political cultures which have evolved under very different circumstances to those currently in play. The two main parties are used to being broad churches, so they can appeal to both their core vote and enough of the 'swing' constituencies in the first past the post system. Now the country has been split by the politics of the referendum, which is a winner-takes-all mass vote and so discourages compromise as well as kneecapping the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Oddly enough the European elections offer a glimpse of yet another model - one which is presently unlikely to be seen in General elections- proportionally elected multiparty coalition democracy. It is arguably the case that altering the electoral system might be a necessary component of reforming the political system in the UK in the long run- it's a very confused mess with devolved assemblies also around.
Stuff
Hard Brexit - Brexit party, UKIP 34.9%
No Brexit - Lib Dem, Green, Plaid Cymru, SNP, Change UK 40.4%
Unclear - Conservative, Labour 23.2%
Looking at vote share change, Brexit gained but UKIP dropped, doesn't that mean that Brexit cannibalized off of UKIP?
ALL of the "No Brexit" parties you list gained. While the "Unclears" suffered.
I suspect that similar to politics here in America, this is an issue that does not allow moderates. You're either for, or against. And you better pick your side and stick with it. Waffling just pisses off everyone.
Conservatives in America are masters of using these wedge issues to provide cover for their shitty agenda. "Abortion is murder rhee" "immigrant invasion rhee" "trans people exist rheee" "war on Christmas rheeee" etc etc. There false choice is that 'you like babies and Christmas then you'd better vote for conservatives'. Their real agenda is to turn around and cut their own taxes and refuse to help you out by providing affordable healthcare or raising the minimum wage or allowing you to vote.
“Brexiteers up to now have been arguing strongly that another referendum would be anti-democratic and I expect them to be even more vociferous about that now.”
How the hell can a referendum be anti-democratic?
“Oh, you realized we were lying our asses off the last time and want a re-do? Sorry, that’s anti-Democratic”
@deltago I think there is a potential argument when things are pushed to extremes. Quite a few people for instance criticized Theresa May for putting essentially the same deal to a vote 3 times in quick succession, despite losing by massive margins.
However, I agree that holding a further referendum 3 years after the previous one, when the proposed meaning of Brexit is radically different from that put forward previously by leave supporters and there's a lot more knowledge about the potential effects ... is not pushing things to extremes. The more strongly Brexiteers argue against another referendum, the more seemingly obvious it becomes that they know they are not representing the will of the people.
“Brexiteers up to now have been arguing strongly that another referendum would be anti-democratic and I expect them to be even more vociferous about that now.”
How the hell can a referendum be anti-democratic?
“Oh, you realized we were lying our asses off the last time and want a re-do? Sorry, that’s anti-Democratic”
There's LITERALLY nothing more democratic than a total population vote to do or not do something.
A referendum is at present more likely than an election in my opinion, though on this occasion the government may be on the Leave side. As nice as it would be if the UK changed its mind however, the poison of referendum politics has now entered the body politic of the UK and created a division that will not be healed even if Remain won decisively. Perhaps one third of the electorate now back a no-deal exit, which would be a very poor outcome. However it is clear that no-deal has no majority in the country, and so the more specific and prescriptive the referendum question becomes the more difficult it is for the Leave side to win. Even if they do have the slogan advantage... e.g. "Tell them again."
“Brexiteers up to now have been arguing strongly that another referendum would be anti-democratic and I expect them to be even more vociferous about that now.”
How the hell can a referendum be anti-democratic?
“Oh, you realized we were lying our asses off the last time and want a re-do? Sorry, that’s anti-Democratic”
There's LITERALLY nothing more democratic than a total population vote to do or not do something.
Full stop.
I would mildly disagree with this. Some issues are not appropriately addressed by a vote, in particular those which impact on individual health & rights. Abortion rights shouldn't be subject to a referendum for example (Remain / Leave is similarly divisive obviously, and may now be the UK's long-term political equivalent if fully embraced by Labour/ Con). Facetiously, if you're deciding on pizza toppings and one person has a mushroom allergy then you don't get to vote on mushroom .
Majority voting is one component of democracy, but something like the 2017 Turkish constitutional referendum is an example of how referendums are capable of short-circuiting established norms. There are also the problems that many decisions are not clearly yes / no, and the complexity of a spectrum of solutions tends to be blurred when the question is a yes/ no one.
The EU referendum actually proscribed many of the rights and opportunities available to UK citizens- e.g. free movement, worker's rights- which is one reason why it wasn't an appropriate way of addressing the UK's role in Europe in my opinion. Not to mention the huge body of UK law that would need rewriting and rethinking.
Referendums in general should be reserved for special situations. Direct democracy is not efficient or reliable, hence the need for representatives to work on policy on our behalf.
Brexit is a spectacular example of a referendum screwing up politics. As others have pointed out, the EU question is between three options, not two, and the first referendum only contained two options. As a result, three years later, we have no policy being implemented on the question, and we still have no idea when that state of limbo is going to end. For all we know, another three years could go by with nothing happening.
Just what we need. Service members wearing patches with the likeness of the President on them while on duty. Because god knows the mentality of serving a MAN instead of the COUNTRY won't cause any problems. For the record, there are scores of ex-military men in this thread saying this is an open and shut violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But I'll bet everything I have if these guys get punished Trump and FOX News will rush to their defense. If a picture had come out in 2011 of 4 or 5 black Air Force cadets wearing Barack Obama insignias on their uniform, the heads of every conservative in the country would have all exploded simultaneously:
Just what we need. Service members wearing patches with the likeness of the President on them while on duty. Because god knows the mentality of serving a MAN instead of the COUNTRY won't cause any problems. For the record, there are scores of ex-military men in this thread saying this is an open and shut violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But I'll bet everything I have if these guys get punished Trump and FOX News will rush to their defense. If a picture had come out in 2011 of 4 or 5 black Air Force cadets wearing Barack Obama insignias on their uniform, the heads of every conservative in the country would have all exploded simultaneously:
Just what we need. Service members wearing patches with the likeness of the President on them while on duty. Because god knows the mentality of serving a MAN instead of the COUNTRY won't cause any problems. For the record, there are scores of ex-military men in this thread saying this is an open and shut violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But I'll bet everything I have if these guys get punished Trump and FOX News will rush to their defense. If a picture had come out in 2011 of 4 or 5 black Air Force cadets wearing Barack Obama insignias on their uniform, the heads of every conservative in the country would have all exploded simultaneously:
We've had discussions in here about what would happen if Trump decided not to accept the results of the 2020 election. He's bragged that the military and the bikers (huh?) would be on his side. So, if it comes down to cases, which way will these guys go?
And of course the military are supposed to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and not one particular guy. Especially not this particular guy who dreams of 4-5 terms and regularly ignores the Constitution.
This might be against the UCMJ and/or a hatch act violation.
And of course the military are supposed to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and not one particular guy. Especially not this particular guy who dreams of 4-5 terms and regularly ignores the Constitution.
This might be against the UCMJ and/or a hatch act violation.
They do get to vote and I presume they vote for the candidate they like. Do you guys really think that because they support Trump that means that they'll be strafing San Francisco next week or something? Paranoid anybody...?
Just what we need. Service members wearing patches with the likeness of the President on them while on duty. Because god knows the mentality of serving a MAN instead of the COUNTRY won't cause any problems. For the record, there are scores of ex-military men in this thread saying this is an open and shut violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But I'll bet everything I have if these guys get punished Trump and FOX News will rush to their defense. If a picture had come out in 2011 of 4 or 5 black Air Force cadets wearing Barack Obama insignias on their uniform, the heads of every conservative in the country would have all exploded simultaneously:
We've had discussions in here about what would happen if Trump decided not to accept the results of the 2020 election. He's bragged that the military and the bikers (huh?) would be on his side. So, if it comes down to cases, which way will these guys go?
I would hope that chain of command would prevail in a situation like this.
I am a little meh about this. This was taken on a day when the President of the United States visited their ship. I would want to say individual soldiers have a right to support their president and as long as these are either an one time thing OR not displayed in public or while dealing with the public in any capacity. I personally have no issue with them. This also isn't the first time they have been photographed on personal however.
As for ex-servicemen perspective: my father who trained airmen in the Canadian military would have a problem with them, however my stepfather who was a sanitation engineer in the military wouldn't.
This seems like a uniform code violation at most. The mere presence of a slogan and support for a political figure tells you very little about a person's values or world outlook, unless the political figure is very fringe and supported by a very narrow and specific demographic.
This is when it helps to have a monarchy. In the UK when people sign up to the armed services they swear allegiance to the monarch, not the flag, not the Minister of Defence and most definitely not the Prime Minister.
And of course the military are supposed to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and not one particular guy. Especially not this particular guy who dreams of 4-5 terms and regularly ignores the Constitution.
This might be against the UCMJ and/or a hatch act violation.
They do get to vote and I presume they vote for the candidate they like. Do you guys really think that because they support Trump that means that they'll be strafing San Francisco next week or something? Paranoid anybody...?
They're free to vote for whomever but not supposed to publicly show support for anyone or any party.
Why? Two reasons.
The military needs to represent America and not be divided by party or candidate because they might need to lay down their lives for America. You don't need divisions by party or candidate causing questionable loyalty. Their loyalty must be to America.
Secondly, it's problematic to have your military be loyal to one person for obvious reasons if you think about it. Maduro and other dictators have the military loyal to themselves personally don't they?
Don't know how this turned into a debate about whether they have a right to support a certain candidate. It's about where and in what circumstance. It is not a free speech issue that I can't plaster Kamala Harris signs around my desk. Nor would it have been one in 2004 when I was working valet and if I had tried to come to work with a John Kerry insignia on the armband of my casino uniform.
As for why we can't have military servicemen doing this uniform, I would think it would be self-explanatory, but apparently that explains why we are where we are. Any slide into authoritarianism with necessarily require making praise or dissent of the leader equate to praise or dissent of the country itself. Just another of the dozens if not hundreds of shattered norms people are shrugging their shoulders at, and when the day comes when the entire thing hits them like a ton of bricks, don't say no one warned you, as if it came out of nowhere. It's been happening day by day and piece by piece for years.
Mitch McConnell has now said that he would fill a vacant Supreme Court seat if one opened in 2020 during the upcoming presidential election.
While I suspect *NO ONE* is at all surprised to see this, it absolutely cuts to the core of his institutional norm breaking hypocritical nature. He suggested that there was precedent for not filling a seat during a presidential election in the past because it was an election issue. It was obvious then, and confirmed now that it was only a political ploy putting the GOP ahead of both the country and the constitution.
I really do think that when all is said and done, McConnell's decision to abnegate his responsibility to the constitution will be of extreme significance, historically speaking. I dont even mean as it relates to how the court will rule over the next 35 years (It will have significance there, too - obviously).
It's a slow burn, but this is worse than the attempted court packing during FDR. I think It might be on the scale of the nullification crisis during Jackson's administration.
Don't know how this turned into a debate about whether they have a right to support a certain candidate. It's about where and in what circumstance. It is not a free speech issue that I can't plaster Kamala Harris signs around my desk. Not would it have been one in 2004 when I was working valet and if I had tried to come to work with a John Kerry insignia on the armband of my casino uniform.
As for why we can't have military servicemen doing this uniform, I would think it would be self-explanatory, but apparently that explains why we are where we are. Any slide into authoritarianism with necessarily require making praise or dissent of the leader equate to praise or dissent of the country itself. Just another of the dozens if not hundreds of shattered norms people are shrugging their shoulders at, and when the day comes when the entire thing hits them like a ton of bricks, don't say no one warned you, as if it came out of nowhere. It's been happening day by day and piece by piece for years.
Patches like this aren't new.
And as I said, the chain of command in the military will prevent any slide into authoritarianism from low level servicemen rising up to support a King Trump.
Comments
As long as Trump keeps praising NK, he can keep up with the fallacious illusion that the North Korean threat no longer exists because he had an one time meeting with Kim.
The headlines I've seen are all about the success of the Brexit party. In the sense of seats that's certainly correct - they will probably be the largest party in the new EU parliament and in position to exercise significant influence there if the UK were in fact to remain in the EU. However, their share of the vote was less than I had expected.
The voting could be broken down as follows:
Hard Brexit - Brexit party, UKIP 34.9%
No Brexit - Lib Dem, Green, Plaid Cymru, SNP, Change UK 40.4%
Unclear - Conservative, Labour 23.2%
(there were a number of minor parties with small shares of the vote not reflected above)
Just thinking about it while writing this post, this result does suggest to me there would be a large majority (at least 60% of the vote) for remain if there were another referendum giving a binary choice between no deal or remain. The bits of news I've seen are not suggesting that at the moment, but I suspect that after the euphoria of topping the polls wears off for Nigel Farage, he's going to start getting quite worried. Brexiteers up to now have been arguing strongly that another referendum would be anti-democratic and I expect them to be even more vociferous about that now.
Factors to consider that would affect a future referendum result:
- a large majority of previous Labour or Conservative voters, for whom a desire for Brexit was the main issue, would have been expected to vote for the Brexit party. Many remainers would similarly have gone for the Lib Dems or Greens, but I suspect quite a few would also have felt too much party allegiance for that. I would therefore expect this group to represent a majority for remain in a referendum.
- the turnout for the EU elections was 37%, which is high for an EU election. However, the first Brexit referendum had a turnout of 65% of the voting population and a rerun would probably at least equal that. By far the most consistent voters are older people, so extra voters would skew towards younger people - who tend to be much more supportive of the EU.
- up to this point Labour has never clearly campaigned for remain (their official position in the first referendum was remain, but the support for that was equivocal). After seeing the success of parties with a clear position, they may decide they need to pick one side - and if they do, that would be remain. I wouldn't expect the official Labour view to change many minds, but it could have some effect.
One other point to make is the implication of the traditional parties being squeezed. This is likely to exacerbate the existing polarization, with Conservatives concluding they need to become more hard line to offset the influence of the Brexit Party and Labour going the other way to stop hemorrhaging votes to the Lib Dems. I don't think that will be good for politics if/when the Brexit debate is eventually concluded, but that's going to be years from now whatever happens over the next few months so there's still plenty of time to change I suppose
Tusk: "Don't waste this time."
Conservative Party: *Cloud of fists, broken tables, and mud.*
It's quite likely that the next Conservative leader (which may well be a surprise figure), will very quickly run into the same brick wall as before. Can't No Deal without being forced into GE, can't get through the present deal without some sort of grand coalition that neither main party wants, can't get a 2nd referendum without their own party combusting. Frankly, they'll be hoping Argentina invades the Falklands... (Modi was helped to an election win with some military action recently after all.)
In my opinion the EU 27 will not yet choose to push the UK out though, and will still be willing to offer another transition from October. No single country would be willing to take that step, and the UK's new leader will not yet have many opportunities to really cause trouble by throwing around veto threats.
Looking at vote share change, Brexit gained but UKIP dropped, doesn't that mean that Brexit cannibalized off of UKIP?
ALL of the "No Brexit" parties you list gained. While the "Unclears" suffered.
I suspect that similar to politics here in America, this is an issue that does not allow moderates. You're either for, or against. And you better pick your side and stick with it. Waffling just pisses off everyone.
Plaid (pronounced plyde) means party in Welsh, so if you refer to the Plaid party, that would mean party party - come on let's party
Conservatives in America are masters of using these wedge issues to provide cover for their shitty agenda. "Abortion is murder rhee" "immigrant invasion rhee" "trans people exist rheee" "war on Christmas rheeee" etc etc. There false choice is that 'you like babies and Christmas then you'd better vote for conservatives'. Their real agenda is to turn around and cut their own taxes and refuse to help you out by providing affordable healthcare or raising the minimum wage or allowing you to vote.
How the hell can a referendum be anti-democratic?
“Oh, you realized we were lying our asses off the last time and want a re-do? Sorry, that’s anti-Democratic”
However, I agree that holding a further referendum 3 years after the previous one, when the proposed meaning of Brexit is radically different from that put forward previously by leave supporters and there's a lot more knowledge about the potential effects ... is not pushing things to extremes. The more strongly Brexiteers argue against another referendum, the more seemingly obvious it becomes that they know they are not representing the will of the people.
There's LITERALLY nothing more democratic than a total population vote to do or not do something.
Full stop.
I would mildly disagree with this. Some issues are not appropriately addressed by a vote, in particular those which impact on individual health & rights. Abortion rights shouldn't be subject to a referendum for example (Remain / Leave is similarly divisive obviously, and may now be the UK's long-term political equivalent if fully embraced by Labour/ Con). Facetiously, if you're deciding on pizza toppings and one person has a mushroom allergy then you don't get to vote on mushroom
Majority voting is one component of democracy, but something like the 2017 Turkish constitutional referendum is an example of how referendums are capable of short-circuiting established norms. There are also the problems that many decisions are not clearly yes / no, and the complexity of a spectrum of solutions tends to be blurred when the question is a yes/ no one.
The EU referendum actually proscribed many of the rights and opportunities available to UK citizens- e.g. free movement, worker's rights- which is one reason why it wasn't an appropriate way of addressing the UK's role in Europe in my opinion. Not to mention the huge body of UK law that would need rewriting and rethinking.
Brexit is a spectacular example of a referendum screwing up politics. As others have pointed out, the EU question is between three options, not two, and the first referendum only contained two options. As a result, three years later, we have no policy being implemented on the question, and we still have no idea when that state of limbo is going to end. For all we know, another three years could go by with nothing happening.
And this is news?
We've had discussions in here about what would happen if Trump decided not to accept the results of the 2020 election. He's bragged that the military and the bikers (huh?) would be on his side. So, if it comes down to cases, which way will these guys go?
This might be against the UCMJ and/or a hatch act violation.
They do get to vote and I presume they vote for the candidate they like. Do you guys really think that because they support Trump that means that they'll be strafing San Francisco next week or something? Paranoid anybody...?
I would hope that chain of command would prevail in a situation like this.
I am a little meh about this. This was taken on a day when the President of the United States visited their ship. I would want to say individual soldiers have a right to support their president and as long as these are either an one time thing OR not displayed in public or while dealing with the public in any capacity. I personally have no issue with them. This also isn't the first time they have been photographed on personal however.
As for ex-servicemen perspective: my father who trained airmen in the Canadian military would have a problem with them, however my stepfather who was a sanitation engineer in the military wouldn't.
They're free to vote for whomever but not supposed to publicly show support for anyone or any party.
Why? Two reasons.
The military needs to represent America and not be divided by party or candidate because they might need to lay down their lives for America. You don't need divisions by party or candidate causing questionable loyalty. Their loyalty must be to America.
Secondly, it's problematic to have your military be loyal to one person for obvious reasons if you think about it. Maduro and other dictators have the military loyal to themselves personally don't they?
As for why we can't have military servicemen doing this uniform, I would think it would be self-explanatory, but apparently that explains why we are where we are. Any slide into authoritarianism with necessarily require making praise or dissent of the leader equate to praise or dissent of the country itself. Just another of the dozens if not hundreds of shattered norms people are shrugging their shoulders at, and when the day comes when the entire thing hits them like a ton of bricks, don't say no one warned you, as if it came out of nowhere. It's been happening day by day and piece by piece for years.
Mitch McConnell has now said that he would fill a vacant Supreme Court seat if one opened in 2020 during the upcoming presidential election.
While I suspect *NO ONE* is at all surprised to see this, it absolutely cuts to the core of his institutional norm breaking hypocritical nature. He suggested that there was precedent for not filling a seat during a presidential election in the past because it was an election issue. It was obvious then, and confirmed now that it was only a political ploy putting the GOP ahead of both the country and the constitution.
I really do think that when all is said and done, McConnell's decision to abnegate his responsibility to the constitution will be of extreme significance, historically speaking. I dont even mean as it relates to how the court will rule over the next 35 years (It will have significance there, too - obviously).
It's a slow burn, but this is worse than the attempted court packing during FDR. I think It might be on the scale of the nullification crisis during Jackson's administration.
Patches like this aren't new.
And as I said, the chain of command in the military will prevent any slide into authoritarianism from low level servicemen rising up to support a King Trump.