The EU is made up of its member states, including Hungary. Its members decide which industries are regulated and to what extent. Monopolies enforced by the government in areas like this are frowned upon in every EU country. Try again with your breathless, feigned outrage.
So the union they're not allowed to create or join should fight for them? Eh?
Unions are not intrinsically bad - the rest of the developed world can show you example after example of successful, decent unions protecting people. You seem to be extrapolating from a couple of union scare stories, which is in itself massively illogical. It will result in a belting argument, I'm sure, but the facts of said argument will be thin on the ground - as we are indeed seeing.
What deos "centralized power in government's hands" mean? Doesn't that describe every single developed country on the planet? If it does, why did you pick Russia and China out of that list, when they're not at all representative?
That was China pressuring NK to work with the SK government, not Trump. And as Trump's "deal" included absolutely nothing (no monitoring, no timeline, no commitments for NK), him making it is entirely moot, as all it achieved was making Kim look like a normal world leader and not the murderous dictator he is. If that's your idea of success, I weep for you.
Negotiating happens at the negotiating table, by people who understand what is being negotiated. This is merely someone who knows next to nothing about trade posturing for his base, or possibly another one of his ill-though-out rants to whoever annoyed him that day.
They've kicked off a lot of people from every political walk you can imagine. Without numbers or even a little more details than your vague claims, you haven't yet formed an argument. Try again..?
If they could block trump, it was for legal reasons. That's how courts work. I'm sorry he didn't get to do all the half-thought-out angry knee-jerk reactionary things you wanted him to. Maybe now he's crippling the economy he'll have more time to devote to appeasing idiots.
Are they that much of snowflakes that some mean words directed against their choices can affect who they vote for? You realise that is damning criticism, right?
So they can fund it, but not make it available? Either they can't do either, or they can do both. Commercial organisations can just decide to stop making the papers available at the drop of a hat, whereas if the government is charged with keeping them available, they will.
I have no idea how you think private entities > the government when it comes to matters like this. We're not talking about pokemon, but scientific research.
You realise that with this "that sort of language caused people to vote for X" logic is you're saying those people incredibly easily swayed in who they vote for, and can flip positions based on name calling. That's not democracy - that's a sham.
He said that having referendums on topics no single person can understand due to the complexity (such as the relationship between the UK and EU, the hundreds of internationl agreements the UK is part of due to its membership with the EU, the standards bodies used by both, etc. etc. etc. etc.) is a bad thing, and he seems to be correct.
This thread reads like an angry discussion in a retirement home three days after the meds stopped flowing. So many angry grandpas screaming at Hillary-shaped clouds.
No different with Hillary? She wasn't colluding with a foreign government to gain power, so immediately your claims are incorrect. Her platform was entirely different to Trumps, which again doesn't make your argument seem well informed.
Clinton lost her election with a lot of help from Russia, as every single US intelligence agency claims. Or are they all deep state?
That's not what net neutrality is. You appear to have a terrifying habit of assuming you are correct when you are not, and not bothering to check whether you are correct in the first place. It would explain an awful lot of what you say, such as when you got your climate change science incorrect and went off in a huff.
I'm sure you'd love that to be the reason, and not the fact that the loudest conservative media outlets in the US are demonstrably terrible at being actual media outlets. Those media outlets do it to themselves with their constant bullshitting and scaremongering.
Slashdot Mirror
Conflicts of interest exist. Your argument only makes sense if they don't.
You seem to be entirely confused about so many things. Wow.
I bet that sounded marvellously edgy in your brain. On the screen it reads like the deranged mumblings of someone sleeping at a bus stop.
You're not really making yourself look particularly sane when you rail against democracy by citing nonsense.
The EU is made up of its member states, including Hungary. Its members decide which industries are regulated and to what extent. Monopolies enforced by the government in areas like this are frowned upon in every EU country. Try again with your breathless, feigned outrage.
So the union they're not allowed to create or join should fight for them? Eh?
Unions are not intrinsically bad - the rest of the developed world can show you example after example of successful, decent unions protecting people. You seem to be extrapolating from a couple of union scare stories, which is in itself massively illogical. It will result in a belting argument, I'm sure, but the facts of said argument will be thin on the ground - as we are indeed seeing.
But at least you speak asshole like a native!
I've never had a scam phone call in my life. Clearly something is amiss over there...
What deos "centralized power in government's hands" mean? Doesn't that describe every single developed country on the planet? If it does, why did you pick Russia and China out of that list, when they're not at all representative?
That was China pressuring NK to work with the SK government, not Trump. And as Trump's "deal" included absolutely nothing (no monitoring, no timeline, no commitments for NK), him making it is entirely moot, as all it achieved was making Kim look like a normal world leader and not the murderous dictator he is. If that's your idea of success, I weep for you.
Negotiating happens at the negotiating table, by people who understand what is being negotiated. This is merely someone who knows next to nothing about trade posturing for his base, or possibly another one of his ill-though-out rants to whoever annoyed him that day.
This is not how adults negotiate.
You're nearly there - now you just have to show that number means what you think it does, and you've got yourself an argument!
You're the only one talking about racism. And badly. You seem really confused, which might explain why you're complaining about people helping you.
They've kicked off a lot of people from every political walk you can imagine. Without numbers or even a little more details than your vague claims, you haven't yet formed an argument. Try again..?
Antifa burn cars and fight nazis.
Nazis burn people and fight everyone else.
Mashiki - "I can't tell the difference!"
If they could block trump, it was for legal reasons. That's how courts work. I'm sorry he didn't get to do all the half-thought-out angry knee-jerk reactionary things you wanted him to. Maybe now he's crippling the economy he'll have more time to devote to appeasing idiots.
Are they that much of snowflakes that some mean words directed against their choices can affect who they vote for? You realise that is damning criticism, right?
So they can fund it, but not make it available? Either they can't do either, or they can do both. Commercial organisations can just decide to stop making the papers available at the drop of a hat, whereas if the government is charged with keeping them available, they will.
I have no idea how you think private entities > the government when it comes to matters like this. We're not talking about pokemon, but scientific research.
You realise that with this "that sort of language caused people to vote for X" logic is you're saying those people incredibly easily swayed in who they vote for, and can flip positions based on name calling. That's not democracy - that's a sham.
This isn't "deep state" - it's one person. Get a grip.
He said that having referendums on topics no single person can understand due to the complexity (such as the relationship between the UK and EU, the hundreds of internationl agreements the UK is part of due to its membership with the EU, the standards bodies used by both, etc. etc. etc. etc.) is a bad thing, and he seems to be correct.
This thread reads like an angry discussion in a retirement home three days after the meds stopped flowing. So many angry grandpas screaming at Hillary-shaped clouds.
No different with Hillary? She wasn't colluding with a foreign government to gain power, so immediately your claims are incorrect. Her platform was entirely different to Trumps, which again doesn't make your argument seem well informed.
Clinton lost her election with a lot of help from Russia, as every single US intelligence agency claims. Or are they all deep state?
That's not what net neutrality is. You appear to have a terrifying habit of assuming you are correct when you are not, and not bothering to check whether you are correct in the first place. It would explain an awful lot of what you say, such as when you got your climate change science incorrect and went off in a huff.
I'm sure you'd love that to be the reason, and not the fact that the loudest conservative media outlets in the US are demonstrably terrible at being actual media outlets. Those media outlets do it to themselves with their constant bullshitting and scaremongering.