Of course "having the Americans on your side" isn't always a good thing for any individual - as numerous victims of so called "friendly fire" would testify (if they were still alive that is".
It's the same type of situation as the US - while the system allowed May (or Trump) to be in charge within the technicalities of the system, they were not voted in by the people with a majority or a mandate.
Actually Trump is in much better shape than May here.
In both systems you have to take the point that all the campaigning effort, getting out the vote etc takes into account the rules as they actually are - not the rules that maybe ought to have been. So, although Trump lost the popular vote under current rules that does not necessarily mean that he would have lost had the popular vote been the deciding factor.
May, on the other hand has taken over without an election on the basis of a referendum where she was on the losing side and has promptly morphed into something like an extremist in opposition to everything that she said beforehand.
y she has a ~3% lead in a referendum that was taken when people thought Cameron was going to be the one to implement it,
What is more she campaigned on the remain side - thus no-one could have predicted what has happened even when voting in the referendum - still less at the election a year before.
The referendum simply rejected remaining in the EU on the terms that Cameron had negotiated. Some people thought that a no vote would simply precipitate a renegotiation of those terms followed by a re-run. This idea was even expressed by Boris Johnson at one point.
I think if the referendum question had said:
Do you want to remain in the EU or do you want to be cannon fodder for US corporate interests then we might have got a different result.
Well - No UK government has actually had 50% of the vote since WW2. So we have been beholden to those technicalities since just about forever. AND Theresa May was one who complained loudly when Gordon Brown took over without an election even though everyone knew at the previous election advance that this would happen - so she is a total hypocrit on that point.
May just wanted to be prime minister. My prediction is that she will live to regret it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
The facts? Do you mean the official facts or the real ones
You may have your own "alternative facts" - but in this case the official facts are remarkably close to the real facts.
Look - I'll accept that there are many occasions when the "official" version of a story is something that has been made up to cover an embarassing reality (such as when Obama (and others) said that Islamic terrorism had"nothig to do with Islam")- but in the case of gun death statistics it is rather hard to enact the degree of cover up that would be needed to make your case even vaguely plausible. You argument is about on a par with the flat earthers.
Given that the officially sanctioned method for destroying the American flag (when it has become to worn for use) is to burn it - what is all the fuss about?
"The United States Flag Code (4 USC Sec 8 Para (k) Amended 7 July 1976) states: "The Flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem of display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning." "
Whilst I agree in general about this trend - I don't see it as being particularly tech-driven.
As technology has improved this particular "tide" has gone in and out. The 18th and early 19th centuries saw increased concentration of wealth based on new technolgies - but the late 19th and early 20th centuries reversed the trend and brought (to the US and W. Europe) the universal prosperity that we still enjoy the remnants of today.
It has been globalisation and the replacement of local workers with cheap third world labour that has done the most damage - not the advent of machines. In fact cheap labour has actually held up the advance of technology - because it is easier to deploy than robots.
On the post: After Voting To 'Escape' EU Sovereignty, Post-Brexit UK Will Become Subject To Corporate Sovereignty On A Massive Scale
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: After Voting To 'Escape' EU Sovereignty, Post-Brexit UK Will Become Subject To Corporate Sovereignty On A Massive Scale
Re:
Of course "having the Americans on your side" isn't always a good thing for any individual - as numerous victims of so called "friendly fire" would testify (if they were still alive that is".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._friendly-fire_incidents_since_1945_with_British _victims
On the post: After Voting To 'Escape' EU Sovereignty, Post-Brexit UK Will Become Subject To Corporate Sovereignty On A Massive Scale
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's the same type of situation as the US - while the system allowed May (or Trump) to be in charge within the technicalities of the system, they were not voted in by the people with a majority or a mandate.
Actually Trump is in much better shape than May here.
In both systems you have to take the point that all the campaigning effort, getting out the vote etc takes into account the rules as they actually are - not the rules that maybe ought to have been. So, although Trump lost the popular vote under current rules that does not necessarily mean that he would have lost had the popular vote been the deciding factor.
May, on the other hand has taken over without an election on the basis of a referendum where she was on the losing side and has promptly morphed into something like an extremist in opposition to everything that she said beforehand.
On the post: After Voting To 'Escape' EU Sovereignty, Post-Brexit UK Will Become Subject To Corporate Sovereignty On A Massive Scale
Re: Re: Re: Re:
y she has a ~3% lead in a referendum that was taken when people thought Cameron was going to be the one to implement it,
What is more she campaigned on the remain side - thus no-one could have predicted what has happened even when voting in the referendum - still less at the election a year before.
The referendum simply rejected remaining in the EU on the terms that Cameron had negotiated. Some people thought that a no vote would simply precipitate a renegotiation of those terms followed by a re-run. This idea was even expressed by Boris Johnson at one point.
I think if the referendum question had said: Do you want to remain in the EU or do you want to be cannon fodder for US corporate interests then we might have got a different result.
On the post: After Voting To 'Escape' EU Sovereignty, Post-Brexit UK Will Become Subject To Corporate Sovereignty On A Massive Scale
Re: Re: Re: Re:
AND Theresa May was one who complained loudly when Gordon Brown took over without an election even though everyone knew at the previous election advance that this would happen - so she is a total hypocrit on that point.
May just wanted to be prime minister. My prediction is that she will live to regret it.
On the post: After Voting To 'Escape' EU Sovereignty, Post-Brexit UK Will Become Subject To Corporate Sovereignty On A Massive Scale
Re:
I would argue that they aren't in any worse waters than the US. I mean, for all their woes they don't have Trump.
For the US at least Trump is (in some sense) on your side.
For the UK Trump is NOT on our side
On the post: Our Humanity
Re: Re: humanity
There is NO humanity in allowing our country to be overrun by those that only come here to take what they can get.
Did the native Americans think that way when your ancestors arrived I wonder?
On the post: Our Humanity
Built on immigration
Basically my entire family came to America between around 1890 and 1920
People have said that the US was built on immigration as if that was somehow a good thing.
I wonder what native Americans feel about that one?
Some of them may wish that there had been a much more comprehensive immigration ban for the last 500 years.
On the post: Our Humanity
Re: Re: Re: Asking
China and Russia are playing long games
Well the ambition of global communism is long dead for both - so what exactly are these "long games" supposed to be achieving.
On the post: Our Humanity
Re: Asking
I've been asking myself why the Russians were gleefully happy when Trump was elected
It was much simpler than your reasons - it was because Trump seemed likely to be more friendly towards Russia than Clinton.
No need for complicated analysis
On the post: Our Humanity
Re: Re: Re: Asking
Because they encourage the citizens of other countries to dislike the USA. Which strengthens Moscow's influence with them.
Like Imran Khan?
http://tribune.com.pk/story/1310571/will-fight-sharifs-corruption-till-last-breath-imran/
Actu ally the evidence I have seen is that it is mostly Americans who dislike these things - and especially the type of Americans who dislike Russia.
On the post: Our Humanity
Re: Asking
So far, the immigration ban and the alienation of the Mexican president are two things I'm sure the Russians love.
I doubt if they care much about either,
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
The border isn't the problem.
Guns come FROM the USA. Almost everywhere else has stricter laws.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: LOVE IT
Weight is not the point - size is the point - you have to get it through the door.
My >$1000 65" tv is so light and thin it's held in place by a couple of picture hooks
Name your TV - I can't find a 65" that weighs less that~50lbs - and some are much heavier.
It may seem light but that is because it is so big - and our intuitive sense of weight is strongly coupled to density.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
The facts? Do you mean the official facts or the real ones
You may have your own "alternative facts" - but in this case the official facts are remarkably close to the real facts.
Look - I'll accept that there are many occasions when the "official" version of a story is something that has been made up to cover an embarassing reality (such as when Obama (and others) said that Islamic terrorism had"nothig to do with Islam")- but in the case of gun death statistics it is rather hard to enact the degree of cover up that would be needed to make your case even vaguely plausible. You argument is about on a par with the flat earthers.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, something the NRA and Republicans
criminals and the mentally ill,... the NRA and Republicans
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: LOVE IT
SMART THIEF.. .. just GRABS that $1000 TV..
...and gives himself a hernia trying to carry it away - you seen the size of $1000 TVs these days?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: why gun control will never work.
Didn't work here in Australia, irrespective of what the pollies say.
Well if you are going to ignore the facts then you can claim anythig that you like.
However I can assure you that it does work. Everywhere it has been properly tried is better than in the US.
See the bar chart halfway down this page.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38365729
On the post: Arrested Flag Burner Sues Arresting Officers
Strange
"The United States Flag Code (4 USC Sec 8 Para (k) Amended 7 July 1976) states: "The Flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem of display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning." "
On the post: Here Come The AIs To Make Office Workers Superfluous
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As technology has improved this particular "tide" has gone in and out. The 18th and early 19th centuries saw increased concentration of wealth based on new technolgies - but the late 19th and early 20th centuries reversed the trend and brought (to the US and W. Europe) the universal prosperity that we still enjoy the remnants of today.
It has been globalisation and the replacement of local workers with cheap third world labour that has done the most damage - not the advent of machines. In fact cheap labour has actually held up the advance of technology - because it is easier to deploy than robots.
Next >>