Nellie The Don

Given that what the countries in Europe used to do for the 2000 years prior was go to war with each other pretty much constantly, I'd say that the EU is working out very well indeed. It's far, far from perfect but given the alternative it's good enough and, given the enormity of the problem, good enough is a pretty overwhelming achievement. I think that part of what makes the EU work is the ability and willingness to fudge things around the edges where no clear cut solution exists. That's why Norway is kind of in the EU and kind of not and why several countries can be in the EU without being in the Euro, and how you can deal with the whole Ireland/N.I. etc. It doesn't need to be perfect, just good enough to stop people from shooting at each other, and let us try to figure out the rest from there. I'm not talking about overnight dissolution. I don't think that such a sudden and dramatic change would happen peacefully. Nor do I have the answers to your questions about whether a solution that fits around existing borders would work. I'm not an expert in any of this, it just seems to me that smaller countries more readily governable in a rational manner without resorting to Authoritarianism than larger ones. As to whether any changes could be achieved without violence, yes, I 100% believe that. It might not seem evident to an outsider looking in at the politics of the place, but the overwhelming majority of people here are rational and just trying to go about their day. Nobody wants to be at war with their neighbours, and anyone trying to push for that is going to find themselves standing alone very fucking quickly.

Well, I'd say that pretty high up the list of principles would be that you don't shoot at, threaten to bomb, or set fire to the homes of people you disagree with. Personally I think that the politics of the US is pretty broken, as evidenced by the fact that you can't mention the glaringly obvious fact that there is a problem with gun violence without it being a partisan political football. It would be more likely, I feel, to be able to have a rational conversation about meeting the challenges you describe if the government weren't so far from the people that it should be serving. I don't think that a country of 300 million (or whatever it is now) can be adequately served by a single centralised government dominated by two parties beating each other up over the points they differ on and allowing no room for discussion on those that they don't. Perhaps the US would work better as 50 closely cooperating countries in more of an EU model, allowing for a greater degree of variation in the manner in which the states are governed. If people in Florida feel that they want to carry guns, ban abortion and stop vaccinating their children, but the people in Massachusetts want to do the opposite, then surely we can do that without having to go to war with each other. I would very much like it if I, my wife and our 3 year old son didn't find ourselves in a war zone, so if any of those changes need to happen I would very much appreciate it if everybody would just chill the fuck out a bit and stop screaming that a fictional bogeyman is trying to kill them because it suits their political ends.

@OrlandoDon I wonder if perhaps the perspective that you feel you have from your longer time in this country has also made you a little blinded by its partisan politics. The reason that I say this is that you appear to be hitting republican partisan talking points based on keywords of what I was saying that didn't make any sense. For example, when I mentioned Trump pardoning the January 6th rioters, who were convicted for trying to violently overturn the result of an election, I was talking specifically about normalising political violence. I don't see how Biden's weird pardoning autopen thing is relevant to that. I am not a democrat, and wouldn't have voted for Biden if I was able to (I am not yet a US citizen). I understand that gerrymandering has gone on from both major parties. It is wrong and deeply undemocratic in both cases, however I mentioned it specifically because Trump is using it in a very specific and dangerous way at present. I find it a bit weird that these boundaries and maps are under partisan control at all, rather than set by independent bodies, but here we are. I am certainly not an extremist, and I think that you suggesting I am proves my point about the concept being used in a very dangerous way to smear anyone that disagrees with Trump and the way he does things. You say that you only hear inflammatory language from one party, and yet I have already pointed out Stephen Miller's characterization of the entire democratic party as 'not a political party, but a domestic extremist organization'. Try and tell me that using the words 'domestic extremist' isn't a dog whistle to a third unsaid word that is immediately invoked in your mind. This matters. In the last week there have been bomb threats to several college campuses, as well as the Democratic headquarters in D.C. and the Democratic leadership in Maine. I can't see that as a coincidence. I would define an extremist as someone who is so sure that what they think is right and important that they would be willing to abandon the principals of a democratic society to achieve it. That certainly doesn't apply to me, nor to anyone I would support. I found Charlie Kirk's views abhorrent, but I certainly didn't wish him any harm. If I seem confrontational to you it is because I'm angry because I think that some of your rather glib comments about civil war and an 'Archduke Ferdinand' moment, along with your unsubstantiated comment that you believe that 'the left' is worse feed into all of this rhetoric that makes the place that I and my family live a less safe place to be, but that anger would never go beyond telling you so. If you don't wish to discuss any further, I will respect that and leave you in peace.

If you hadn't heard of Charlie Kirk until last week than you probably hadn't heard of Nick Fuentes either. He is a white supremacist, and leader of an Internet based group known as 'groypers', who despised Charlie Kirk because they thought he was too liberal. There is mounting evidence that his (Charlie Kirk's) suspected murderer was one of them. All of this bullshit about 'violent radical leftists' is being used as a pretext to go after anyone who stands in Trump's way. That in itself is utterly terrifying, but it's nothing compared to what's coming down the road. Once he has finished removing the last constitutional limitations to his power, gerrymandered the US into a one-party state and imposed martial law on the major cities, all that may be left to hope for is some return to some degree of relative sanity after he departs office. Keep your eyes open for a Fuentes/Steve Bannon candidate emerging ahead of 2028. Things could get very dark very quickly.

I've lived in the US for 2 years, and have family who have been here since the 70s. It has become a noticeably less safe and stable place over the last 9 months. Just saying 'I believe they are worse' is all fine and well. Some people believe in the tooth fairy. When they start arming themselves and talking about going to war with the tooth fairy, it's time for the sake of everyone's safety to challenge them to justify what the fuck they are talking about.

I gave concrete examples. Can you do the same?

Nah. Fuck that. This all came about a week after Trump's deputy chief of staff said that the entire democratic party is 'not a political party, but a domestic extremist organisation'. Less than 3 months ago the democratic speaker of the Minnesota state legislature was assassinated by a right wing extremist, and your entire party basically just shrugged and ignored it. The guy that attacked Nancy Pelosi's husband with a hammer was lionised as a patriot by *checks notes* Charlie Kirk. Trump pardoned everyone convicted of rioting and attacking the capitol building because they didn't like the result of the 2020 election. We've had him painting a target on Hilary Clinton's back by claiming that 'the 2nd ammendment people could stop her', and then Kamala Harris' by removing her secret service protection and then using the police union to prevent LAPD from protecting her. Trump, and just about every other Maga talking head spent the last few days attempting to weaponise Charlie Kirk's death against the 'extremist left', to the point of invoking 'civil war', only for it to turn out that the shooter was nothing of the kind. This upsurge in political violence is a problem from and of the right, and your Maga pals need to fucking own it or grace us all with a long overdue great big silence.

You don't know yet why he was killed. Neither do I. Based on the information that is available about the suspect, though, I would be very surprised if he turns out to be left wing or even leaning. It seems much more likely to be a thinly veiled accelerationist act or a spat within the far far right.

I don't think I've ever seen him in a mood other than 'miserable prick'.

Happy Albert Kidd day!

What do the animal rights crew have to say about Panda baiting?

I hope that they do well enough this season to earn themselves a nice long contract.

Fixed

Have to think that MacDonald has played his last game for us if he is fit enough to be on the bench, but Thelin prefers to play with no recognised central defenders at 0-0.

Tony Todd Tony Todd Tony Todd Tony Todd