Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Troubles in the UK

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Troubles in the UK

    All the latest scandals and problems in the UK can go here.

    Here's the most recent ,......

    Idiots confused about what a penis & and vagina are, now causing troubles for the royal family in the UK

    Seems this is done only to spite the royal family ? Who knows ?

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Meghans Excited To Raise Child Gender Fluid, Queen Gives Her Huge Reality Check

    Meghan Markle, the former cable TV actress, now formally called the Duchess of Sussex, announced she is excited to raise her child gender fluid.

    The 37-year-old social climber has been scolded behind the scenes time and time again for pumping her far-left political views in public, and now she is branding the baby-to-be as genderless, called a theybie. Well, Queen Elizabeth II isnt amused, and she made sure the Duchess got a huge reality check.

    ..the former D-List actress has decided to cause the 92-year-old Queen grief by announcing shell be raising the child as genderless.

    These parents who are raising their kids gender fluid call the babies: theybies.

    But what makes this gender-open style of parenting stand out, and even controversial in some circles, is that the parents do not reveal the sex of their children to anyone, NBC News reports. Even the children, who are aware of their own body parts and how they may differ from others, are not taught to associate those body parts with being a boy or girl.

    Its utter poppycock, a royal insider told Mad World News. The Queen sees Meghans latest antics of this gender fluid nonsense as part of Markles consistent refusal to properly serve the Commonwealth as part of the Royal Family. The Duchess indulges in serving her own needs and appears to intentionally cause controversy for Buckingham Palace.

    It appears the Monarch and her advisers have washed their hands of Meghan Markle.

    After this story hit the press, the palace said, No comment. The royal insider said, Her Majesty long reign is marked by certain scandals and she trusts the British people know rubbish when they see it.

    Political pronouncements by the Royal Family are considered a violation of protocol, with members required to be publicly neutral in order to maintain widespread support for the Monarchy as an institution. Reports are the Queen tried to get Meghan as much help as possible to make her transition smooth, but it all came to a head when the 37-year-old social climber refused the help Her Majesty sent and went rogue time and time again.

    Queen Elizabeth sent Samantha Cohen, her beloved assistant private secretary and press spokesperson, to straighten out Meghan Markle. Cohen, who is nicknamed Samantha the Panther for her no-nonsense approach to royal protocols and duty, found out quickly the former cable TV actress had no intention of serving the British people.

    It was reported back in December that Cohen resigned and is scheduled to leave after the baby is born. And of course, Samantha the Panther let the Queen know Meghans many faux pas was not done from ignorance but out of spite for the traditional role the Monarchy stands for in England.


    https://buzzconservative.com/2019/03...TOiyHHYCxUg7dY

  • #2
    And now for something completely different..

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Theresa May on track for the worst General Election result in Tory Party history
    - as Brexit Party is predicted to win more votes than Labour and Conservatives COMBINED in European elections, polls say


    The Brexit Party will earn more votes than Labour and the Conservatives combined in the European Parliament elections, and could even beat the Tories in a General election, two extraordinary polls revealed this morning.

    In an Opinium poll in the Observer, focused on this month's European elections, Nigel Farage's new party is predicted to hoover up 34 per cent of the vote. The same poll gave Labour 21 per cent and put the Tories in a miserable fourth place with 11 per cent

    But an even more extraordinary poll, commissioned by a Brexit Party donor and published in the Sunday Telegraph, said for the first time the Brexit Party would beat the Tories in a General Election.

    The ComRes survey of voting intentions put Brexit on 21 per cent to the Conservatives' 20, which would see Farage's team win 49 seats, becoming the UK's second biggest party after Labour, with 137.

    Andrew Hawkins, the chairman of ComRes, described the poll as a 'disaster', adding: 'If the Conservative leadership contenders are not careful, there will be no party for them to lead.'

    It will deepen the panic spreading among Tory members, as more than 600 Tory association chairmen, councillors, donors and activists, wrote to the Telegraph to warn that if Mrs May cannot deliver a clean exit, MPs must replace her urgently or 'risk disaster'.

    They wrote: 'Voters could not be clearer in saying how angry and betrayed they feel Conservative voters most of all. The damage that this is doing to party and country is incalculable.'

    The polls follow calamitous council elections, where Mrs May oversaw the loss of nearly 1,300 Tory councillors, and comes ahead of a predicted wipeout in the European elections in the next fortnight.

    The poll shows the Conservatives would lose 46 seats to the Brexit Party, dethroning Defence Secretary Penny Mordaunt, Health Secretary Matt Hancock and party chairman Brandon Lewis.

    And Labour would take the scalps of Boris Johnson, Iain Duncan Smith and Sir Graham Brady, the chairman of the 1922 committee, with the Tories retaining support from less than half of those who voted for them in 2017.

    Jeremy Corbyn would be able to lead a minority government with 27% support, leaving the Brexit Party with 20% and the Conservatives 19% support, according to the poll commissioned by Brexit Express.

    Mr Farage said: 'It (Brexit) hasn't happened partly because of the dishonest, duplicitous and utterly useless Prime Minister in Theresa May.

    'No question, she is the worst Prime Minister in the history of this country, bar none.'

    He told the rally Mrs May's deal would be a new EU treaty 'that will cost us, for reasons I've yet to understand, 39 billion... a treaty that may well leave us trapped inside the EU's custom union in perpetuity'.

    He added: 'This treaty that she wants to put through is more like a surrender document of a nation that has been defeated in war.'


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...elections.html

    ?


    • #3
      It seems May is going to beat Merkel out the door;

      https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...-date-16187191

      ?


      • #4
        Originally posted by CYDdharta View Post
        It seems May is going to beat Merkel out the door;

        https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...-date-16187191
        It does look that way.

        There are many articles all over the place about it.

        ?


        • #5
          Yes, it is over for May



          TEARFUL Theresa May today finally admitted her time was up and quit as Prime Minister insisting: "I've done my best".

          The PM was forced to resign after she failed to deliver Brexit and lost the support of her own MPs - but will continue in office as a lame duck until July.




          https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/914441...ship-election/

          ?


          • #6
            Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
            Yes, it is over for May



            TEARFUL Theresa May today finally admitted her time was up and quit as Prime Minister insisting: "I've done my best".

            The PM was forced to resign after she failed to deliver Brexit and lost the support of her own MPs - but will continue in office as a lame duck until July.




            https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/914441...ship-election/
            Perhaps Boris will have better luck fulfilling the electorate's decision to BrExit.

            ?


            • #7
              Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
              Yes, it is over for May



              TEARFUL Theresa May today finally admitted her time was up and quit as Prime Minister insisting: "I've done my best".

              The PM was forced to resign after she failed to deliver Brexit and lost the support of her own MPs - but will continue in office as a lame duck until July.




              https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/914441...ship-election/
              Pathetic, she is truly the U.K.'s Patsy Schroeder.

              ?


              • #8
                Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                Pathetic, she is truly the U.K.'s Patsy Schroeder.
                Only good will come of this I think.


                People will not fight to defend bloated, incompetent, undemocratic international organizations like the EU or the UN.

                Americans wouldn't. It's mom, flag and apple pie (our national values), not Juncker's.

                On Monday when the results of the EU elections can be published, we will find out if he's right, if Western Europe wants to scrap nationalism, or if I'm right and sentiment for national sovereignty and traditions still rules the day.


                ..

                https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...s_country.html

                ?


                • #9
                  You do realize that the oh so undemocratic EU has just held continental elections to pick its leadership ? While that is not a claim to perfection can you name another organization of that kind whose leadership has a democratic mandate ? No ?
                  Yes, the president of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker ( from Luxembourg) is elected, wether you like that or not. His party bloc ( the union of conservative parties of Europe, for that he ran, controls the majority of mandates in the European parliament. To put it simply : Who wanted Juncker to head the EU, voted for the conservative party in his/her home country. The members of his Commission required confirmation by the Parliament that can also reject them or demand their dismissal. The candidates for his succession are Manfred Weber ( conservative, Germany), Frans Timmermans ( Social Democrat, Netherlands), and Margarethe Vesthager ( liberal ( which in the european sense means libertarian) from Denmark). The next Commission will most likely be a coalition between either the Conservatives and the Liberals or between the Social Democrats, Greens and probably other left-leaning parties. Yet the horse-trading only begins ( surprises are possible) and Juncker will stay as head of the Commission till autumn.
                  As far as the "wrapped in the flag- crowd" is concerned : Nationalists have made gains in some countries (Italy), held their ground in others without advancing though (France), remained insignificant in third ones (Germany, Spain), lost in some places (Austria, Sweden, Denmark) and were also torn to pieces (de Wilders in the Netherlands). Counted together these parties and groupings control a bloc of around 7,5 % of the Mandates, and they are also plagued by internal divisions. To mention just two issues : Money and refugees : Southern European nationalists ( such as in Italy) are deficit spenders, northern european nationalists are fiscal hawks. Conflicts totally predictable. Or refugees : Italys wanna-be Mussolini Matteo Salvini wants a european system of sharing the burden ( and is yes, close to the german position on that). His problem is that his nationalist "partners" are categorically against any sharing of the burden for his country. "My country first" people will always struggle to cooperate with other "my country first" people. That is why the EUs political system is built on plenty of carefully callibrated compromises ( of which the "Good Friday Agreement" over Northern Ireland, that has emerged as one the major stumbling blocs for the Brexit negotiations, is an example), yet that are not always catchy headline material.
                  It is true that also in Europe the traditional main parties are on the decline ( sometimes through faults of their own and sometimes due to forces beyond their control, such as demographics) yet it is demonstratably untrue that these votes go automatically to the nationalists. We have multi-party systems that Americans ( and Brits) often have trouble to understand.
                  In Germany the far-right AFD stuck around the 10 % mark while the unapologetically pro- EU Greens got more than double that share and also beat the traditional center-left party SPD. And the Greens are by far the largest party among voters under 35, while the AFDs base is largely in their fifties or older. One should be able to realize what that means. Or in France Macron suffered a punch ( though largely over interior policy), while the pro-EU vote still was around 75 %. Since there are more than two parties on the ballot. Not to mention that Madame Le Pen has officially given up on "Frexit" , since "one doesnt win with that in France" (on which she is right). Which is why Le Pens and Salvinis message is now to "reform the EU". Yet that is not easy with 7,5 % of the vote. Yet also that is Democracy, even if you guys might not like it. The "nationalist uprising" is ( once again ) cancelled and the voters have spoken. Now you could be kind enough to respect that.


                  https://www.politico.eu/article/how-...ament-results/

                  And as far as the UK is concerned : While Farages "Brexit"-Party that has no recognizeable policies except Brexit finished at 31/32 % and can be assumed to have generously collected protest votes of all kinds, the parties on the pro-EU spectre ( the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, Change UK or the Scottish Nationalists) together account for slightly less than 40 %. With the Tories and Labour torn back and forth between pro- and anti EU forces that want to march in different directions (revoke Brexit, second Referendum, renegotiate Brexit treaty ( although the EU has ruled that out), no-deal Brexit etc.).
                  Yes, strong showing by Farage, but a decisive and clear mandate that is hardly. The result much rather demonstrates that the country continues to be split around the middle on Brexit. And that is an issue that any successor to May will have to deal with as well.
                  Last edited by Voland; 05-27-2019, 06:34 AM.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Voland View Post
                    You do realize that the oh so undemocratic EU has just held continental elections to pick its leadership ? While that is not a claim to perfection can you name another organization of that kind whose leadership has a democratic mandate ? No ?
                    Yes, the president of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker ( from Luxembourg) is elected, wether you like that or not. His party bloc ( the union of conservative parties of Europe, for that he ran, controls the majority of mandates in the European parliament. To put it simply : Who wanted Juncker to head the EU, voted for the conservative party in his/her home country. The members of his Commission required confirmation by the Parliament that can also reject them or demand their dismissal. The candidates for his succession are Manfred Weber ( conservative, Germany), Frans Timmermans ( Social Democrat, Netherlands), and Margarethe Vesthager ( liberal ( which in the european sense means libertarian) from Denmark). The next Commission will most likely be a coalition between either the Conservatives and the Liberals or between the Social Democrats, Greens and probably other left-leaning parties. Yet the horse-trading only begins ( surprises are possible) and Juncker will stay as head of the Commission till autumn.
                    As far as the "wrapped in the flag- crowd" is concerned : Nationalists have made gains in some countries (Italy), held their ground in others without advancing though (France), remained insignificant in third ones (Germany, Spain), lost in some places (Austria, Sweden, Denmark) and were also torn to pieces (de Wilders in the Netherlands). Counted together these parties and groupings control a bloc of around 7,5 % of the Mandates, and they are also plagued by internal divisions. To mention just two issues : Money and refugees : Southern European nationalists ( such as in Italy) are deficit spenders, northern european nationalists are fiscal hawks. Conflicts totally predictable. Or refugees : Italys wanna-be Mussolini Matteo Salvini wants a european system of sharing the burden ( and is yes, close to the german position on that). His problem is that his nationalist "partners" are categorically against any sharing of the burden for his country. "My country first" people will always struggle to cooperate with other "my country first" people. That is why the EUs political system is built on plenty of carefully callibrated compromises ( of which the "Good Friday Agreement" over Northern Ireland, that has emerged as one the major stumbling blocs for the Brexit negotiations, is an example), yet that are not always catchy headline material.
                    It is true that also in Europe the traditional main parties are on the decline ( sometimes through faults of their own and sometimes due to forces beyond their control, such as demographics) yet it is demonstratably untrue that these votes go automatically to the nationalists. We have multi-party systems that Americans ( and Brits) often have trouble to understand.
                    In Germany the far-right AFD stuck around the 10 % mark while the unapologetically pro- EU Greens got more than double that share and also beat the traditional center-left party SPD. And the Greens are by far the largest party among voters under 35, while the AFDs base is largely in their fifties or older. One should be able to realize what that means. Or in France Macron suffered a punch ( though largely over interior policy), while the pro-EU vote still was around 75 %. Since there are more than two parties on the ballot. Not to mention that Madame Le Pen has officially given up on "Frexit" , since "one doesnt win with that in France" (on which she is right). Which is why Le Pens and Salvinis message is now to "reform the EU". Yet that is not easy with 7,5 % of the vote. Yet also that is Democracy, even if you guys might not like it. The "nationalist uprising" is ( once again ) cancelled and the voters have spoken. Now you could be kind enough to respect that.


                    https://www.politico.eu/article/how-...ament-results/
                    Very informative, thank you.

                    My main point is that there are things happening, not only in the U.S., with the "big orange boogyman" Donald Trump, but in Europe as well.

                    I think a lot of what is happening, is happening in reaction to extreme leftist ideas & policies, being shoved down peoples throats for too long.

                    Just as would happen in the opposite, if extreme right ideas & policies were being shoved down peoples throats for too long.

                    As I said above, I think only good will come of all this.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                      Very informative, thank you.

                      My main point is that there are things happening, not only in the U.S., with the "big orange boogyman" Donald Trump, but in Europe as well.

                      I think a lot of what is happening, is happening in reaction to extreme leftist ideas & policies, being shoved down peoples throats for too long.

                      Just as would happen in the opposite, if extreme right ideas & policies were being shoved down peoples throats for too long.

                      As I said above, I think only good will come of all this.
                      For now, it seems that voters in the EU are more tired of swallowing what has been cooked up by the extreme right. That's one reason why the left made recent gains. In a better world, the right would be much more careful how they handle xenophobia (or the other phobias). And the left would be more than open to the idea of shrinking the size of gov't. once alternatives are found for the social and ecological safety nets. Both (all?) sides of the political spectrum would do well to spend public revenue where it has the most value and positive impact, and consistently perform an "objectives" analysis of past gov't. programs -to see which ones made the "valuable" list, and drop policies that just don't work.

                      What I see working for the right in the EU is a pledge to shrink their bureaucracy by making it more efficient. Do that first, then take a couple or three issues that the left proposes and attack their proposals. Are they simply unnecessary or could they be done better by some organization in the private sector? Make issues a short list -since adding more would probably backfire- and use that as a secondary attack. The primary issue should be the left's support of the EU's growing bureaucracy, which is arguably why the right made gains in previous elections.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                        For now, it seems that voters in the EU are more tired of swallowing what has been cooked up by the extreme right. That's one reason why the left made recent gains. In a better world, the right would be much more careful how they handle xenophobia (or the other phobias). And the left would be more than open to the idea of shrinking the size of gov't. once alternatives are found for the social and ecological safety nets. Both (all?) sides of the political spectrum would do well to spend public revenue where it has the most value and positive impact, and consistently perform an "objectives" analysis of past gov't. programs -to see which ones made the "valuable" list, and drop policies that just don't work.
                        It all sounds good.

                        The problem comes about when the bureaucrats start arguing with one another about which ones "just don't work."

                        More often, they're mostly concerned with these policies and how they work FOR THEMSELVES, not the people ... and they always have good sounding rationales to make it sound like they're concern is for the people, when it's really NOT.

                        I think that is the biggest problem in many governments today. These people create job security for themselves by creating needs that aren't necessary.

                        Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                        What I see working for the right in the EU is a pledge to shrink their bureaucracy by making it more efficient. Do that first, then take a couple or three issues that the left proposes and attack their proposals. Are they simply unnecessary or could they be done better by some organization in the private sector? Make issues a short list -since adding more would probably backfire- and use that as a secondary attack. The primary issue should be the left's support of the EU's growing bureaucracy, which is arguably why the right made gains in previous elections.
                        Good ideas you have I think in general.

                        The "growing bureaucracy" everywhere, is like a destructive fungus attacking a buildings structure. Not so easy to get rid of. .. but it does need to be dealt with.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                          It all sounds good.

                          The problem comes about when the bureaucrats start arguing with one another about which ones "just don't work."

                          More often, they're mostly concerned with these policies and how they work FOR THEMSELVES, not the people ... and they always have good sounding rationales to make it sound like they're concern is for the people, when it's really NOT.

                          I think that is the biggest problem in many governments today. These people create job security for themselves by creating needs that aren't necessary.



                          Good ideas you have I think in general.

                          The "growing bureaucracy" everywhere, is like a destructive fungus attacking a buildings structure. Not so easy to get rid of. .. but it does need to be dealt with.

                          "The "growing bureaucracy" everywhere, is like a destructive fungus attacking a buildings structure. Not so easy to get rid of. .. but it does need to be dealt with."

                          A fungus indeed. Most recently that "growing bureaucracy" appears to have committed illegal spying and attempted entrapment of a political opposition presidential campaign. Are we cetain that we haven't already arrived at the European 'administrative state', where the state overrules the freedoms, liberties and rights of the electorate, whenever it wants to?

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                            "The "growing bureaucracy" everywhere, is like a destructive fungus attacking a buildings structure. Not so easy to get rid of. .. but it does need to be dealt with."

                            A fungus indeed. Most recently that "growing bureaucracy" appears to have committed illegal spying and attempted entrapment of a political opposition presidential campaign. Are we cetain that we haven't already arrived at the European 'administrative state', where the state overrules the freedoms, liberties and rights of the electorate, whenever it wants to?
                            If we aren't yet, we were very damn close.

                            Which the current person in the whitehouse is trying to clean up and repair.

                            And like getting rid of fungus and termites from a buildings structure, it is slow, dirty and dangerous work - as we see.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                              If we aren't yet, we were very damn close.

                              Which the current person in the whitehouse is trying to clean up and repair.

                              And like getting rid of fungus and termites from a buildings structure, it is slow, dirty and dangerous work - as we see.
                              All it would take is a Democrat, or even a political elite Republican, to take the White House in 2020, and all the bureaucratic fungus' criminality and abuse of federal government power would be swept under the rug, disappear forever as if it never happened, and remain in place, its use continued.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X