Exactly. And the reason for that is that there appears a divide between people who think the end justifies the means and those who don't. And in the US that seems to follow party lines to an important extent.

But we'll see because I'm not offering a theory here just gut feelings.

Because if impeachment fails, it will be held against all democratic candidates raising his chances of re-election. I think the effect on Democrats being proven wrong is larger than the effect of it being proved that Trump is a sleazeball. The latter is proved by demonstration on a weekly basis. I would consider it more important to improve the likelihood of winning the presidential race.

Maw, it's not that I don't see your point, it's that I think you're overestimating the effects. Your rationalising, with numbers even, what is all about emotion. You cannot measure whether people would be swayed or not and I think you greatly underestimate the universal "meh".

They may disapprove but will it change their voting behaviour? I don't think so.

You assume people care. You do, other Democrats do. The average Republican clearly doesn't because anything is better than a Democrat. They'd have voted in a rabbid homosexual dingo as long as he's not a Democrat. If they did care, he'd never gotten elected in the first place.

You're also assuming there will be fair and balanced reporting by Fox and Bteibart. So I guess you'll feel really good about it all with your buddies that already think as you do but it's not an election strategy. Especially since running a platform on "I'm not as bad as Trump" isn't exactly inspiring.

If the Democrats are incapable of crossing the divide and finding neutral ground and understanding with the typical Trump voter, it will just be more of the tribal "I'll never vote for a Democrat/Republican" that we've seen for decades now.

Why do you believe waiting with impeachment until possibly after the elections is wrong? If he's reelected you still get a chance.

Trump is immune to scandals. If you throw shit at shit, it still looks the same.

Moreover, the idea the media landscape of watergate is the same as now seems to me too optimistic. You're not going to break through the outrage media and have them report negatively on Trump. It doesn't sell. Him working with the ruskies is business smarts, you see?

I didn't say never, I said, wait until after the presidential election.

Edit: Also a nice example of the elitist bullshit that has people that "are too stupid to understand what's good for them" vote for Trump.

Great. If that's the case then it will be a horrible case of inexperience compounded by impatience.

To hell with it. That is 'politics over principle'. He must face impeachment. I don't see how the Dems can face their electorates without bringing impeachment, not to do so is to give Trump an even bigger win. If Mitch McConnell rejects the impeachment finding, then let it be on GOP heads. — Wayfarer

That's not politics over principle. That's employing politics to reach the principled goal of removing an unfit president. If they lose the election, they can always try to impeach after that. If you try to impeach and lose, you have obtained neither the presidency nor his removal.

what? You want him reelected? If he survives impeachment procedures it means in the eye of the public that he didn't do it.

And that, in the end, is what makes him a terrible leader. Instead of fixing mistakes, they're compounded or covered up. If that's the culture you're projecting one can only imagine the consequences in the long run.

If preparing for a no deal Brexit isn’t organization, I don’t know what is. But sure, if you wish to call that unorganized, I won’t hold it against you. — NOS4A2

The withdrawal is unorganized in case of a no deal Brexit, that's doesn't mean people cannot plan to mitigate the consequences of that fall out. Your mistake is to think the latter makes the former organised. It doesn't but this point seems rather obvious.

The point is that a no-deal Brexit does not imply leaving in an unorganized fashion at all, despite your claims to the contrary. — NOS4A2

Having to stockpile foodstuffs, medicine and manufacturing components is to mitigate the consequences of an unorganised withdrawal, it doesn't make things organised at all.

Your interest in discussing these matters is just one where you vomit opinions. Have you even read the withdrawal agreement? Can you explain to me the issue about the Irish back stop, why the alternative arrangements will or won't work and what that means for the Good Friday agreements?

yes, that's called contingency planning. We've got plans for when natural disasters happen as well. That's not a reason to invite them to happen. Try again.

The EU already knows what the UK wants, as proven by the referendum: they want out of the EU. The deal aspect has been tacked on after the fact, willy nilly, by someone who always wanted to remain in the EU in the first place. — NOS4A2

You're talking out of your ass. The deal aspect hasn't been slapped on willy nilly, it was never the intention of the UK government to leave in an unorganised fashion and the deal was negotiated by the tories who promised Brexit.

You seem to have no clue what leaving the EU involves after such an integration over decades. I'm just going to point out financial services. Just think about the financial services provided by UK financial entities across Europe. You leave without a deal you immediately cause those banks not to be able to offer any type of service in the EU27 and what's more they can't act in primary markets anymore thus closing of business with non-EU investors for European IPOs and (sovereign) debt issuance. LCH would no longer be accepted as a clearing organisation. Just leaving would devastate the UK financial industry.

I don’t see how a deal is the only way to go, especially if that deal is no good. May’s deal, for instance, was deemed a bad deal. Rather, It would be shooting oneself in the foot to accept a bad deal. The no-deal needs to remain on the table as another option. — NOS4A2

You don't see it because you haven't thought it through.

The content of May's deal wasn't the problem. It was her trying to ram it through parliament without including mps in the discussions during the negotiation process that lead to it being rejected. If she had included representatives of Parliament in the preparations and negotiations the support would have been broad based and the resulting deal would've been pretty much the same. There's not really that many flavours to it, the divorce bill, the recognition of court decisions, recognition of licenses granted by local supervisors and obviously a trade deal.

Party politics wouldn't allow such a thing though because the Tories wanted the recognition as the party that got you Brexit and they chewed off more than they could handle. Welcome to the implosion of the Tories; the irrelevant party for the next generation.

“Safe to assume” is not good enough. It was once safe to assume the UK didn’t want to leave the EU. Boy, was that assumption wrong. — NOS4A2

The UK didn't want to leave. A statistically insignificant majority of those who voted advised Parliament they wanted to leave the EU. And yes, it is safe to assume that those who voted against Brexit in the referendum would consider it worse to have no agreements in place at all with the EU than at least have some of them remaining. That's safe to assume because it's simple logic not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

The direct trading effect for the Netherlands is estimated at a loss of about 10 billion euros. This will be somewhat mitigated because UK companies will be less competitive in the EU market after it leaves the EU and this will create opportunities for Dutch companies. Because the same holds true for every other company in the EU, it remains to be seen how strong the mitigating effect is.

Can’t deny that. But she did negotiate a Brexit deal, agreed to by the EU.

But perhaps worse than that deal is they’re giving up their one remaining bargaining chip: a no deal Brexit. — NOS4A2

The best alternative to no agreement is throwing the UK a bone.

Any deal is better than no deal, so "no deal" isn't and never has been a bargaining chip because it's the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. It's entirely possible though this is exactly what the political outcome will be, because politics isn't a negotiation. However, the EU in this process is acting as the technocratic bureacracy it is, bereft of politics and just straight negotiations because the political mandate has been set out 2 years ago. So political commitments of UK politicians that they'll deliver on Brexit with "no deal" if they have to, has no effect on the stance of the EU.

The EU has been very clear: it has completely closed rank in support of Ireland as it should be. After all, Ireland will remain a member and the UK wanted to leave... well, actually people were split on the question.

Which brings me to another point, people voted for leave with a stastically insignificant majority (and as such should never have carried the weight it does now) and while a majority of those who voted for leave would be happy with no deal, it's safe to assume that all Remainers were and are against a no-deal Brexit even more than a negotiated Brexit. In other words, a vast majority of UK citizens never wanted and do not currently want a no-deal Brexit.

Yeah, totally irrelevant because Brexit is totally going to empower tenants and the working class because no Brit will ever have to adhere to those pesky EU regulations.

let's hope they do realise and aren't fond of gambling.

The government has since argued that Wallace “misspoke” in the conversation. Clearly he did. Because the minister did the unspeakable: he gave credence to people’s suspicions. He suggested that Johnson has done “it” – the proroguing of parliament – due to the precarious position of his minority government in regards to Brexit. Furthermore, Wallace’s behaviour suggests the cabinet thinks the whole thing is funny:

I saw the video but this isn't a necessary conclusion from what he said. As a whole, it could be interpreted as explaining why BoJo opted for such an extreme measure as the only way to break the impasse that exists in Parliament.

I'm not conflating it either just pointing out that your expectation is hardly as natural as you believe it is and if politics aren't a sign of the times, I'm not sure what is. So yes, I think the expectation is old fashioned. Hence the tongue in cheek comment about you being a fossil.

Realise you're frequenting a website where people will use ad homs while debating nothing. And they all think they're capable of civilized debate.

Thank god the Irish and Brits can think of a fitting pun.

The standards of acceptable debate apply to us both equally. — creativesoul

That's just hilarious in light of the political actions in the UK and the USA. What are you? A fossil?

you're wasting your time mate. He has not once replied to any question and assumes bad faith towards everyone. He doesn't care what you say and pretends not to care what you think of him. That's largely true but for the fact he continues to linger about like a bad odour because he gets his kicks from seeing people react to him. Basically an attention whore.

I thought the British political establishment was a bit more serious about respecting its own institutions. I thought wrong.

So we have an advisory referendum and a Parliament that's totally within its rights not to follow it despite political promises made by some political parties. Now, as far as I know Parliament as a whole is not against Brexit, just a no-deal Brexit.

Boris maintains a large majority voted in favour of Brexit (statistically, the vote was basically split) and now blames the constitutional crisis he wrought on Parliament because according to him everybody against a no-deal Brexit is anti-Brexit.

He lies less obviously than Trum, but he still lies.

Questions for the Brits: can the Queen refuse Boris' request for the longer leave?

Stop. Feeding. The. Troll.

We don't need to look at ancient history, unfortunately. All of Trumps meddling with foreign trade, damaging American industries and raising prices for consumers, and the trade deficit is still higher than it was under the Obama administration. — praxis

The trade deficit is almost irrelevant in comparison to capital flows. You can have a perpetual trade deficit as long as it's funded by foreign direct investment.

Fuck. Why is everyone engaging the troll?

That's a lot of alphabet pasta.

Trump is a retard. People who defend him either have an agenda and see him as a tool to further their own agenda or they are retards themselves. That said, arguing with a presumed retard makes it hard to tell the difference.

I never said I did. I was much less talking about individualism as a social theory, which the term collectivism points to, than a personal idea of identity that we were talking about.

That said, I don't reject government interference at the detriment of some individual liberty outright as I do think it has a role to play in creating opportunity, eg. positive freedom. Stuff like universal healthcare is a no brainer to me, considering I've never once have had to worry about medical bills or those of my family or having to skimp on treatment due to money concerns.

This ought to be obvious, but seldom is. Actually, that addition of "I reject for the most part" is crucial. Because to say differences between groups people don't exist at all, or are only the invention of the mind of some people, isn't right either. — ssu

Is it? My identity is defined by my relation to the world. That includes other people. There's family, neighbourhood, city, state, the world. I "borrow" from it all. Then there's how I relate to human history; get from my parents, studied in a university over 400 years old, live in a house I didn't build. Or as the ancient celts said: I draw water from wells I didn't build. There's nothing "individual" about my identity at all. It's one of the more persistent illusions of our time that the individualism is something to aspire to while it really is a degradation of society.

That's not to say we should blindly accept the position and relations that we are thrown in. In the end freedom is about accepting the chains we want to bind ourselves with; family, friends, kids etc.

So getting that back to privilege, I think the main differences can be found there: it's mostly about opportunity to be able to choose. Money makes it easier to choose, so people with more are privileged. Sometimes that's even unfair, e.g. inheritance inequality or exorbitant salaries or taxation rules disproportionally benefitting RoI over wages.

And there's definitely a privilege to being part of the dominant sub-culture within a nation and that's still being male, white, straight, no tattoos etc. All else being equal, I'm more likely to land a job interview than the guy with the foreign sounding name on his resume. All else being equal, I'm less likely to be stopped by police. All else being equal, people are less likely to call the cops when I'm tresspassing. Here's a nice video demonstrating that in the Netherlands, where being white makes all the difference:

Plus, it's an attempt at poisoning the well that says nothing about whether his positions are right or not.

How many people said that about Trump?

Everything you've described can be bought with money. So what you've described is that you need money not freedom. It appears to me that you aren't yet speaking about what freedom means in a political sense. So I'll extrapolate a bit from what you've said and you tell me if I'm close.

You seem to describe some basic wants that should be possible right after you have your basic needs fulfilled. I would say that's about freedom of choice and the existence of opportunity. So if that's good for you, it should be good for others, right?

How do you go about maximising the freedom of choice and opportunity for as many people as possible? Or do you reject that freedom (for now described as choice and opportunity) should be universal? If so, why?

but everything you mentioned could be obtained with money. So you're not concerned about freedom but about money. Or what am I missing?

My bills being paid, my family having their needs met, being able to have a few glasses of whisky and soda on the weekend, not spending $20 on a tin of Three Nuns because of sin taxes, and doing what I want in my spare time within the confines of the law. — Obscuration

So you don't want freedom but money?

freedoms — Obscuration

What is freedom according to you?