Seems an appropriate thread to post this thought.........

Someone had better be following the MONEY very carefully that has been raised purportedly in support of the proposed recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvannia......notice how Hiliary jumped on the bandwagon after it was revealed there had been $5 million raised? Clintons have never seen a million they didn't want.

........waste of money that could be donated to Charity if people are that anxious to just throw it away..........do some good.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Atm currently on Chapter 3 of a very good book: Tim Marshall's Prisoners of Geography: Ten maps that tell you everything about Global Politics.

"There are fifty American states, but they add up to one nation in a way the twenty-eight sovereign states of the European Union never can. Most of the EU states have a national identity far stronger, more defined, than any American state. It is easy to find a French person who is French first, European second, or one who pays little allegiance to the idea of Europe, but an American identifies with their Union in a way few Europeans do theirs. This is explained by geography, and by the history of the unification of the USA."
(page 52)

"In the 1960s the USA’s failure in Vietnam damaged its confidence, and made it more cautious about foreign entanglements. However, what was effectively a defeat did not substantially alter America’s global strategy.
There were now only three places from which a challenge to American hegemony could come: a united Europe, Russia and China. All would grow stronger, but two would reach their limits.
The dream of some Europeans of an EU with ‘ever closer union’ and a common foreign and defence policy is dying slowly before our eyes, and even if it were not the EU countries spend so little on defence that ultimately they remain reliant on the USA. The economic crash of 2008 has left the European powers reduced in capacity and with little appetite for foreign adventures."
(page 60)

"dying slowly before our eyes" - so much for the so-called US of E.

Atm currently on Chapter 3 of a very good book: Tim Marshall's Prisoners of Geography: Ten maps that tell you everything about Global Politics.

"There are fifty American states, but they add up to one nation in a way the twenty-eight sovereign states of the European Union never can. Most of the EU states have a national identity far stronger, more defined, than any American state. It is easy to find a French person who is French first, European second, or one who pays little allegiance to the idea of Europe, but an American identifies with their Union in a way few Europeans do theirs. This is explained by geography, and by the history of the unification of the USA."
(page 52)

Sirius B,

This is a bit of a generalization on the part of Tim Marshall. Sure, there are many people in the USA that do identify as Marshall says, but it is far from ALL of us. Many (but by no means all) identify as citizens of their particular State first, and the USA second. This is especially true in (but not limited to) the four States that were independent nations before becoming part of the USA: Vermont (Republic of Vermont: 1777 - 1791), Texas (Republic of Texas: 1836 - 1846), California (Bear Republic: 25 days in 1846), and Hawaii (Kingdom of Hawaii: 1795 - 1893).

There are ongoing secessionist movements in these four States, and several others as well.

"In the 1960s the USA’s failure in Vietnam damaged its confidence, and made it more cautious about foreign entanglements. However, what was effectively a defeat did not substantially alter America’s global strategy.
There were now only three places from which a challenge to American hegemony could come: a united Europe, Russia and China. All would grow stronger, but two would reach their limits.
The dream of some Europeans of an EU with ‘ever closer union’ and a common foreign and defence policy is dying slowly before our eyes, and even if it were not the EU countries spend so little on defence that ultimately they remain reliant on the USA. The economic crash of 2008 has left the European powers reduced in capacity and with little appetite for foreign adventures."
(page 60)

"dying slowly before our eyes" - so much for the so-called US of E.

The initial dream of many both in what is now the USA and in what is now the EU for a Union of member Nations cooperating in some areas (common economics, common defense, etc.) but otherwise retaining their National Sovereignty was a noble dream. 'National Government' power creep kind of killed it in the USA (starting in Washington's first term), and is proving somewhat toxic to the development of the EU as well. The USA and the EU are not really all that different in concept, but are at different stages of the process with the USA being at a much more advanced stage of Sovereignty loss for its Member States.

Remember, various parts of the USA (or even in some individual States such as Texas or California) have just as vast a cultural difference as any two Nation-States in the EU. The cultural differences between (for instance) Connecticut and Texas are just as vast as, say, the differences between France and Germany. Even the cultural differences between various portions of Texas (for instance), Northeast (US Deep South), Central (German) and Southwest (highly Mexican) Texas can be quite... vivid.

But, on the whole, Texas (and California) do have pronounced Mexican influences, Statewide. Among these is Revolution. Remember (I am not sure how much History of the region you might have studied), when the President of Mexico at the time (1835 - Generalissimo Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna) voided the Mexican Constitution of 1824 and declared himself Dictator, quite a bit of Mexico went into rebellion over the next few years.

The Republic of the Rio Grande (Spanish: República del Río Grande) was an independent nation that insurgents against the Central Mexican Government sought to establish in northern Mexico. The Republic of the Rio Grande was just one of a series of independence movements in Mexico under Santa Anna's government, including the Texan Revolution, the Republic of Zacatecas, and the Republic of Yucatán. The rebellion lasted from January 17 to November 6, 1840

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_the_Rio_Grande

The northern part of the Mexican State of Coahuila y Tejas rebelled in 1836, and were successful.

The remainder of Coahuila, joining with the Mexican States of Nuevo León and Tamaulipas, rebelled in early 1840, and formed the short-lived Republic of the Rio Grande. They were not successful. During the rebellion, parts of what is now Texas were claimed by THREE nations (Republic of Texas, Republic of the Rio Grande, and of course, los Estados Unidos Mexicanos (the United Mexican States - also known as Mexico).

Of the 'Six Flags over Texas', (Spain, France, Mexico, Republic of Texas, the USA, and the CSA),
the Republic of the Rio Grande was the seventh.

.

Oh... one of the variants of the Texas flag during the CSA era... Look Familiar?



As I mentioned earlier, in 1846 parts of the Mexican Territory of Alta California went into rebellion against Mexico. This area (the so called Republic of California or the 'Bear Republic' -- immortalized on the Flag of California -- see Gary's signature) held out for about a month until the US Army invaded the region and took over with Mexico formally ceding the area to the USA under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 ending the Mexican-American War (along with all claims on the entire Mexican Territory of Alta California, all of the Mexican Territory of Nuevo Mexico, and the former Republic of Texas -- all told, about 1/3rd of the current land area of the Continental 'lower 48' USA).

On the whole, I think that Marshall's book will be a good read. I am going to have to get a copy.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

The initial dream of many both in what is now the USA and in what is now the EU for a Union of member Nations cooperating in some areas (common economics, common defense, etc.) but otherwise retaining their National Sovereignty was a noble dream.

Common economics in the EU?
Common defense in the EU?
Common religion in the EU?
Common language in the EU?
Since when?

Dream on:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHRNSeuvzlM

Thanks MK, that was an interesting read.

Oh... one of the variants of the Texas flag during the CSA era... Look Familiar?

Hmm, that does look familiar :-)

On the whole, I think that Marshall's book will be a good read. I am going to have to get a copy.

Just finished it & it is a good read. It's in no way a concise history.

It's divided into 10 chapters.
1: Russia
2: China
3: USA
4: Western Europe
5: Africa
6: The Middle East
7: India & Pakistan
8: Korea & Japan
9: Latin America
10: The Artic

I would say that each chapter was an excellent summary of each region & an excellent insight into Geopolitics.

Thank you Major K, you knocked that one out of the park! :)

17 days ago when I said:

Fun fact of the day: Apparently Vermont is the MOST gun-friendly state in the US. Which makes perfect sense but MajorKong would do a faaar better job at giving you THAT history lesson, than I ever could :)

Your previous post was pretty much the history lesson I was referring to :)

The initial dream of many both in what is now the USA and in what is now the EU for a Union of member Nations cooperating in some areas (common economics, common defense, etc.) but otherwise retaining their National Sovereignty was a noble dream.

Common economics in the EU?
Common defense in the EU?
Common religion in the EU?
Common language in the EU?
Since when?

Dream on:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHRNSeuvzlM

By 'common economics' I meant:
1. Common weights and measures.
2. Barrier-free Trade between the States.
3. Free movement between the States. No 'immigration concerns'.
4. Common currency. Not at first, but it soon developed.
as well as more.

I did NOT mean State/Local tax policy, relative amounts of Socialist programs in the Governments of the Several States, or any of that.

By 'common defense', well... At first the Army was State-based, only coming under Federal control in times of Declared war. That has since changed, about the time of WWI, but even now about 1/3rd of the military is STILL State-based, though Federalize-able at will (think 'National Guard' units).

We ALSO have common 'foreign relations' (diplomacy, trade, treaties, etc).

We do NOT have a 'common religion'. US citizens are of a large variety of religious beliefs, ranging from various Native American religions, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhism, a host of others... And, of course both Atheism, and MANY versions of Christianity. In the USA, one is pretty much free to believe what one wishes to.

A common language? Oh, heck no!! We do NOT have a common 'official' language in the USA. Granted English is very common, but there are many others that are spoken over here. There is NO single 'official language' in the USA. Here in Texas, just walking down the street, non-Native American languages (imports) that one is likely to hear are English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, German, a number of native African languages, Italian, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, various dialects of Chinese, Arabic, Farsi, Russian, and a great many others, even some Swedish :).

I don't know who might have told you that we, in the USA, have a common religion and language... But when they tell you that malarkey, they are blowing stink out of their backsides. They don't know what they are talking about. Granted, English may be most common in much of the USA, but in much of Texas, Spanish is. And various sorts of Christianity may be most common in the USA, but the USA is NOT an exclusively Christian nation, and even then some of the varieties of 'Christianity' do not get along with some other varieties.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

The initial dream of many both in what is now the USA and in what is now the EU for a Union of member Nations cooperating in some areas (common economics, common defense, etc.) but otherwise retaining their National Sovereignty was a noble dream.

Common economics in the EU?
Common defense in the EU?
Common religion in the EU?
Common language in the EU?
Since when?

Dream on:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHRNSeuvzlM

By 'common economics' I meant:
1. Common weights and measures.
2. Barrier-free Trade between the States.
3. Free movement between the States. No 'immigration concerns'.
4. Common currency. Not at first, but it soon developed.
as well as more.

In the EU.
1. The International System of Units (SI) is much older than the idea of EU.
2. True.
3. Hmm. Sort of... It depends. Even people from countries within the Schengen agreement cannot move freely between the states anymore.
4. Not at all. Both the UK and Sweden are not in the Eurozone.

When it comes to languages, cultures and religions you cannot compare the US with EU.
Heck. Many of the European countries have several official languages.
Finland, Sweden, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Switzerland for instance.
With languages comes culture as well...

HMS "Pound" & USS "Dollar" have been recalled for refit, but many want the ships to stay sailing on the oceans as they were.

HMS "Pound"

USS "Dollar"

Fair trade...but on our terms!

"Boeing has previously called for an Australian company, found to be in receipt of similar prohibited subsidies, to be forced to immediately repay them, but it's unlikely it will take such a hard line on itself. "

Hmm...

... and today in our series of "More good news for the UK, more bad news for the EZ" we have two whoppers for ya!

Experts get it wrong for the "umpteenth time" (sorry Snark, pun intended)*. Humanity considers falling back on prediction makers with a better track record. Astrology is the clear favorite for now, though some in the UK are convinced tea-leaves are in for a comeback!

Very serious people get UK predictions wrong. Again.
IMF and the OECD in talks of merger. New megacorp referred to as Chicken Little internally.

"Osborne’s belief that voters would be swayed by fears of recession meant Lagarde and Gurría popped up regularly during the campaign. In the event, the plan did not work. Those who voted to leave the EU appeared sceptical about the forecasts produced by the IMF and the OECD – and those from the Treasury and the Bank of England, for that matter."

Very serious people get EZ predictions wrong. Again.
The European elite have developed a death wish

"So Fillon v Le Pen is not “good news for Europe”. Neither is Juncker’s promise to double down on all the mistakes that led us here; nor the IMF’s insistence that Greece should destroy its democracy some more; nor Renzi’s decision to play shit or bust with the Italian banking system."


*WK, where art thou?

Fair trade...but on our terms!

"Boeing has previously called for an Australian company, found to be in receipt of similar prohibited subsidies, to be forced to immediately repay them, but it's unlikely it will take such a hard line on itself. "

Hmm...

Heh...

That 'illegal' tax break is not illegal. The US FEDERAL Government is a member of the WTO. It is NOT a US Federal Tax. It is a tax by the State Government of Washington State on Boeing. This is the STANDARD way that US States (and even more local Governments) compete with each other to retain jobs in their area, and to attract new ones.

It is a State Tax, not a Federal Tax. The State is not a signatory to the WTO, indeed can NOT be by restrictions in the US Federal Constitution.

Perhaps the WTO needs to go away. Globalism must go away.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Fair trade...but on our terms!

"Boeing has previously called for an Australian company, found to be in receipt of similar prohibited subsidies, to be forced to immediately repay them, but it's unlikely it will take such a hard line on itself. "

Hmm...

Heh...

That 'illegal' tax break is not illegal. The US FEDERAL Government is a member of the WTO. It is NOT a US Federal Tax. It is a tax by the State Government of Washington State on Boeing. This is the STANDARD way that US States (and even more local Governments) compete with each other to retain jobs in their area, and to attract new ones.

It is a State Tax, not a Federal Tax. The State is not a signatory to the WTO, indeed can NOT be by restrictions in the US Federal Constitution.

Quite correct. The government of Washington State can do nothing to upset the treaties of the USA. So if it has then the Feds must force the State of Washington into compliance with the treaty provisions.

Of course Washington State can sue the Feds to say that it has the right to set taxes as it pleases and the Feds did not have the authority to ratify the WTO treaty as it interferes with Washington's State rights.

Or someone blinks.

---

Then WA got out bid with Chicago, Offering Big Incentives, Will Be Boeing's New Home. Har! ;^)
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/11/business/chicago-offering-big-incentives-will-be-boeing-s-new-home.html

---

...

Then WA got out bid with Chicago, Offering Big Incentives, Will Be Boeing's New Home. Har! ;^)
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/11/business/chicago-offering-big-incentives-will-be-boeing-s-new-home.html

That's the HQ, you know the BOD and their secretaries. Manufacturing is staying in WA.

---

I suggest you read Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18. "All Other Powers" now consider the power in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2, never mind the power in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. If the Senate ratifies, it is done. But if you mean that Congress would have to pass a law saying enforce it, yes, then tanks can roll down the streets in Olympia. I'm not going to search the USC to see if Congress already passed a catch all law that says enforce all treaties -- likely with some specific exceptions -- but the absence of such would surprise me.

---

then tanks can roll down the streets in Olympia

Joint Base Lewis–McChord Is only 30 miles from Olympia.

---

I suggest you read Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18. "All Other Powers" now consider the power in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2, never mind the power in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. If the Senate ratifies, it is done. But if you mean that Congress would have to pass a law saying enforce it, yes, then tanks can roll down the streets in Olympia. I'm not going to search the USC to see if Congress already passed a catch all law that says enforce all treaties -- likely with some specific exceptions -- but the absence of such would surprise me.

Ah, but are you assuming here that the WTO was ratified by the US Senate as a Treaty? It was NOT.

It was implemented as a 'Congressional-Executive Agreement'. That is, it effectively has the status of a Federal statue law. Under the US Constitution, States have the right to set their own Taxes. Federal statue law can NOT change this.

As far as your statement:

then tanks can roll down the streets in Olympia.

Well, that would be the END of the US Federal Government. Civil war.

In the words of 'Dirty Harry' Callahan:

Go ahead -- make my day.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Fair trade...but on our terms!

"Boeing has previously called for an Australian company, found to be in receipt of similar prohibited subsidies, to be forced to immediately repay them, but it's unlikely it will take such a hard line on itself. "

Hmm...

Heh...

That 'illegal' tax break is not illegal. The US FEDERAL Government is a member of the WTO. It is NOT a US Federal Tax. It is a tax by the State Government of Washington State on Boeing. This is the STANDARD way that US States (and even more local Governments) compete with each other to retain jobs in their area, and to attract new ones.

It is a State Tax, not a Federal Tax. The State is not a signatory to the WTO, indeed can NOT be by restrictions in the US Federal Constitution.

Perhaps the WTO needs to go away. Globalism must go away.

Whether it is a state or federal issue, it is still a government subsidy & Boeing should repay it just like they forced that Australian company to do....

...or is it a case of a level playing field - AS long as it favours the USA?