We are all Slave now.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why is Labour calling a no-confidence vote if they don't think they'll win it?

Corbin is a moron?

Like, seriously. They could have spent the last two years or whatever organizing around how brexit is stupid and harmful and (at minimum) the wrong approach to the problems that voters were concerned about he be in a position to win big majorities. If nothing else, be the opposition.

Instead, he’s gitthey standing for nothing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Corbin is a moron?

Like, seriously. They could have spent the last two years or whatever organizing around how brexit is stupid and harmful and (at minimum) the wrong approach to the problems that voters were concerned about he be in a position to win big majorities. If nothing else, be the opposition.

Instead, he’s gitthey standing for nothing.

It appears to me that there are three substantial groups of voters in the UK: Those who are for Remain, those who are for Brexit, and those who are for Brexit under notional conditions that will never come to pass in the real world. None has a majority. So there's a majority for Brexit in the abstract, but a majority against May's Brexit plan.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It appears to me that there are three substantial groups of voters in the UK: Those who are for Remain, those who are for Brexit, and those who are for Brexit under notional conditions that will never come to pass in the real world. None has a majority. So there's a majority for Brexit in the abstract, but a majority against May's Brexit plan.

What specific things wrecked this, or what your third group wants? Was Brexit passed by a large margin?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

What specific things wrecked this, or what your third group wants? Was Brexit passed by a large margin?

The Brexit referendum passed by a non-large margin, but Theresa May's proposal today got crushed in Parliament. If you assume that Parliament represents the country on this, which it may not, then many Britons are for the abstract idea of Brexit, but against the actual Brexit deal which this government has been able to negotiate. Anyone who has been paying attention has to believe that the May government has done about what could be expected, given that it has no leverage vis-a-vis the other 27 EU member states. So the problem is that there are many Britons who like and voted for some notional Brexit, but who don't like actual Brexit.

eta: Sort of like the way that Donald Trump got enough votes to win against Hillary, but most of the country has been unhappy with him. Sort of.

eata:

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It appears to me that there are three substantial groups of voters in the UK: Those who are for Remain, those who are for Brexit, and those who are for Brexit under notional conditions that will never come to pass in the real world. None has a majority. So there's a majority for Brexit in the abstract, but a majority against May's Brexit plan.

Right, the job is to move the third group to Labour. I’m not close enough to know whether that’s by pushing the impossibility of a deal those voters will like, the harms of a bad deal or the positives of remaining, but Corbyn’s “I’m secretly for Brexit” doesn’t seem to be working.

[Adder]

Confidential to Hank: have you explored whether Guernica was inspired by Gaudi’s iron work, in particular on the balconies of La Pedrera?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Right, the job is to move the third group to Labour. I’m not close enough to know whether that’s by pushing the impossibility of a deal those voters will like, the harms of a bad deal or the positives of remaining, but Corbyn’s “I’m secretly for Brexit” doesn’t seem to be working.

Corbyn appears to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The Brexit referendum passed by a non-large margin, but Theresa May's proposal today got crushed in Parliament. If you assume that Parliament represents the country on this, which it may not, then many Britons are for the abstract idea of Brexit, but against the actual Brexit deal which this government has been able to negotiate. Anyone who has been paying attention has to believe that the May government has done about what could be expected, given that it has no leverage vis-a-vis the other 27 EU member states. So the problem is that there are many Britons who like and voted for some notional Brexit, but who don't like actual Brexit.

eta: Sort of like the way that Donald Trump got enough votes to win against Hillary, but most of the country has been unhappy with him. Sort of.

eata:

Some majority of Britons appear to want the trade advantages of the EU without the liberal immigration. The EU has to take an all-in or all-out posture. Otherwise, every other country can arm-twist for a bespoke “membership.”

What will be interesting is if a no deal Brexit proceeds and somehow the economic impact to GB is not as significant as expected. This would embolden problem debtor nations in the EU to push against austerity dictates from Brussels. The EU could run into enforcement problems regarding other members if GB survives a hard Brexit.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Pelosi knows how to play the game, and the reporters who said she was "asking" the White House to do anything should go back to school to learn what's what.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Pelosi knows how to play the game, and the reporters who said she was "asking" the White House to do anything should go back to school to learn what's what.

One more norm violated.

Good move on her part. Fight fire with fire.

He’ll say he doesn’t care and try to do it live from Oval. Winners: Networks. Losers: Everybody else.

But this and Cohen’s testimony look to be some wild entertainment. Pathetic, but also weirdly fascinating.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Pelosi knows how to play the game, and the reporters who said she was "asking" the White House to do anything should go back to school to learn what's what.

"play the game?" as to Trump? GTFOH. Do you remember trying to deal with Penske socks? Knowing how to play the game helped how?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

One more norm violated.

Good move on her part. Fight fire with fire.

He’ll say he doesn’t care and try to do it live from Oval. Winners: Networks. Losers: Everybody else.

But this and Cohen’s testimony look to be some wild entertainment. Pathetic, but also weirdly fascinating.

I see shutting down the government as violating a norm, and pretending that things continue normally when it's shut down as additional violation. So in that sense, saying that the speech should wait until the government is open seems restorative. Not sure that the shutdown will go another two weeks, so I would not be surprised if there's a deal before then and that even if Trump backs down, his getting to do the SOTU on the original date will be painted (by him) as Pelosi caving.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I see shutting down the government as violating a norm, and pretending that things continue normally when it's shut down as additional violation. So in that sense, saying that the speech should wait until the government is open seems restorative. Not sure that the shutdown will go another two weeks, so I would not be surprised if there's a deal before then and that even if Trump backs down, his getting to do the SOTU on the original date will be painted (by him) as Pelosi caving.

Don't think I view Pelosi as the norm violator here. I'm just citing the fact that in this bizarre set of affairs, another norm (that the President give a SOTU before Congress) has been violated. Has that ever happened before?

I think Pelosi was smart to do what she did. I'd have done the same. You can't give a bully a pedestal to make a political speech to Congress lambasting half the room for refusing to get behind his request for $5bil for a wall that is never going to be built and even if it were going to be built would be largely futile.

The abnormality here isn't that the govt is shut down. That's happened quite a few times before. The abnormality is that the govt is shutdown over something that is a pure political stunt. At least in the past when it was shut down, there was a real dispute, an actual disagreement over something that was going to happen. The wall is complete fiction. From a construction standpoint it cannot be built. This dispute might as well be over whether Congress will allocate funds for Trump to build time machines.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Don't think I view Pelosi as the norm violator here. I'm just citing the fact that in this bizarre set of affairs, another norm (that the President give a SOTU before Congress) has been violated. Has that ever happened before?
.

Per Pelosi’s letter, sotu messGeswere given in writings til the Wilson administration.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

But we'll never do this because it gives up guaranteed revenue streams for states and local govts.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/e...nal-licensing/