We are all Slave now.

[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:

[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.

[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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

Trump and the Republicans are taking hostages to try to get leverage to do something that is unpopular. They have done this before. Negotiating with them encourages them to do it again.

The way this should end is with a bigger deal that gives both the GOP and Democrats a win on something they care about. But the wall is about dominance for Trump, and he is too worried about being criticized by the right wing of his party.

[LessinSF]

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.

Trump Fires Back. This is childish, on both sides.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Trump Fires Back. This is childish, on both sides.

Pelosi's move left open the possibility that they could strike a deal and Trump would then get to do his speech. No one really cares if Pelosi goes to Afghanistan -- it's just petty.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Trump Fires Back. This is childish, on both sides.

I guess I stand corrected. I still think it was wise to preclude him from using SOTU before Congress to grandstand and attack.

[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?