Trump Thread

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is that your way of ensuring that your arguments are only applicable as far as you want them to be? "It's completely different, so the general philosophical argument that was universally applicable when I put it forward without need for specific examples is now completely inapplicable."

1. When the EU tells us to make sure that we comply with mutually agreed laws, it is an intolerable infringement on our sovereignty.
2. When the US tells us to send troops to their foreign adventure without even informing us beforehand, it is just a fact of life.

At least with the EU we knew the rules beforehand. With the US, we learn about it on the news.

That was never my argument though, was it, Pan? My argument was that the EU was specifically aiming to create a European Superstate without the consent of the governed peoples (not the plural) and that the ills of the EU has come to out-way the economic benefits.

In the case of NATO I think it's fair to say that with European disarmament we rely on the US for our safety against Russia. If the US continues to elect Trump and we rearm that calculation might change - but Trump can only be elected once more and we aren't likely to rearm.