Lol, that's what I've said. No Dei, it wasn't. Snap elections are pretty unlikely. What part don't you get, the referendum itself had nothing to do with leaving the EU. No, the referendum DIDN'T have leaving the EU as a topic. Just tearing down the strawman you put up. No, no strawman here. You actually said that and then ignored my question. I really don't care for your conspiracy theories LOL. "BLAH BLAH BLAH, that you don't know that shows your narrow world view!" a pretty poor argument. I think it's pretty naive and frankly stupid of you to think that they've solved world peace.You honestly don't hear the fears of various intelligent agents around the world that are smarter than you or I on this subject. I'm sure in your mind it goes more like "Well of course white people have figured out world peace!" lol the end of this post displays how arrogant and foolish you are. Once again Dei, tell me why Russia wants to get rid of NATO and the EU? Also, do you realize the western world is still part of the world? Or are you so dumb that you think the world is big enough to build a wall around Europe and just ignore the rest of the world? Bombing other countries to hell is extremism pal. As for your strategy, that doesn't work. You see, we tried to ignore extremism before? That was Hitler. It grew and tried to consume the world. Now, I know you know little of history but Muslims have a bit of history of riding into Europe conquering. Your strategy basically encourages that. Also speaking of 'Dark, evil people.' that speaks to you. Your strategy also ignores the millions of innocent people caught in the middle of wars. You give no ***** about them or their suffering. You are the dark and evil person, you literally just said to bomb a huge swath of the land killing BILLIONS of people. Damn dude, you are like literally Hitler. .
Well of course he'd think the Nazi's look cool... Sounds like a Nazi strategy to me. "Bomb the rest of the world, kill billions." and then actually think he's on the side of the bright, good people!
1. I never denied that Trump had an effect but, like the rest of my quote said, 2. It was partly about the EU. You can literally find articles talking about it, like the one I already provided. How can you explain that? 3. What strawman? You literally asked me 4. What are you talking about? You asked me what the EU was for and why I was against it, I explained that it was about sovereignty and then you strawmanned it to me saying that anything that didn't work should be torn down so you could attack me for not wanting reform. 5. How is "Hofer would've been a body blow to the EU but he's not necessary to taking it down" a conspiracy theory? Let me make this clear: You are suggesting that European countries, particularly Western European countries, like France and Germany will go to war without a political union? For myriads of reasons but that's a tangent. They will control migration from Africa and the ME. It's a migratory wave causing chaos and death and not just to the natives living in Europe who get raped and murdered by the "refugees", including ISIS agents, but also to the migrants who risk unsafe channels like the Mediterranean crossing. Europe has still not learned the same lesson Australia has learned when it deported anyone who came to Australia through boats. We'll kill them if they try. Why are you admonishing me for them choosing to invade Europe? It was a figure of speech you moron. Of course we'll bomb them trying to keep civilian casualties as low as possible.
So I don't know why you pretend as if Trump has nothing to do with this topic. Especially as you talk about the momentum of your beliefs taking hold. You can also find plenty of articles that explain that the referendum had nothing to do with leaving the EU. Again, you are assuming that everyone that voted No wants to leave the EU. The strawman of you talking about France and Germany going to war. You said that I said that. 'The notion that France and Germany would instantly dissolve into war from removing themselves from a political union is idiotic.' was never a notion I put out there. W.T.F....But see, YOU SAID THAT. You said that the EU should be taken down because in your mind it doesn't work. You said that. It wasn't a strawman because you said... "Hofer would've been a body blow to the EU but he's not necessary to taking it down" War becomes a much more likely option, especially with decreasing world resources that are suddenly not being shared because of isolation politics. I don't know if you know this but humans have been warring for years and the heart of it is just basic plain greed. This ties into Russia, ask what a few Baltic states think of NATO and its importance to their security. If NATO and the EU dissolve, am I saying 100% there would be a massive war? No, unlike you I refrain from certainties especially naive ones like "War is done in Europe!" but there is certainly a chance. No, I just think it's silly that you think Europe isolating itself against the world is going to solve the issues in the middle-east. Then sillier if you think the problems in the Middle-east don't bleed over into Europe. I think it's pretty risky, there was already a wiki-leaks about Erdogan having ISIS ties, I could imagine a nightmare scenario involving that. Sure Dei. I'm supposed to know that on the internet. Especially coming from a guy whose said plenty of racists things and then used the N-word and said it was only a joke or whatever excuse you've made for it. Here's a hint. People can't read tone through text (unless you are writing with a literary style...) so when you say "We'll bomb the ME and Africa to hell." I take it as I read it.
Before I respond to the rest of the post, let's get this part straight: You asked me what the EU was for: So I answered it was about France and Germany doing trade to prevent another war. In fact, I explained it in decent depth: which you did not bother to quote in your immediate response. Now, with the assumption that you knew that and from your second sentence about creating instability in the region, it's logical to think you're implying France and Germany would go to war if the EU collapses. I think that makes sense but I'm starting to think I'm giving you too much credit. I asked you once and you did not reply so I'll ask again and I implore you answer straight - did you know what the EU was originally made for? What exactly were you implying with creating " a lot more fearful of instability in the region"?
Yes I do, but do you understand that now it stands for much more than just Germany and France? You understand that right? What was I implying? Let's not act like I'm the only person in the world to imply that there would be instability in the region without the EU.
Then why were you complaining that me saying that you were suggesting that France and Germany would ever go to war was a strawman?
No. You asked me what the EU was originally for (preventing France and Germany from going to war) and then said that if I was aware of that then I'd be a lot more fearful about creating instability in the region. It makes logical sequence to think you were implying about France and Germany going to war. Your accusation that I was making a strawman was plain wrong.
To be specific, the EU isn't just about France and Germany though so I'm not sure why you jumped to "You think France and Germany will go to war." It has always been bigger than that as things on the world stage are. I asked you why it exists, in technical terms it was born out of the ECSC and EEC and to prevent war between Germany and France, but that wasn't the ultimate goal. In broader terms is what I speak of. That was to make war impossible between member states, peace and unity within the region basically. So what would replace it?
Then I wasn't making a strawman, as you have accused me of, here because it was well within the context, do you agree? Because you even asking who brought that topic up makes it really seem like you didn't know what you were talking about.
Well within context, sure. At the same time, it certainly was a jump. It would be like if I said "The Cavaliers won't be repeating as champions." and you turn around and say. "So you're saying that the Spurs will win the championship?" no, that's not what I said. If you reread the post you just quoted you'd understand that the ultimate goal was never to just prevent France and Germany from going to war against each other but to unify the region entirely. Its early incarnations had a broader purpose that has led to what exists today. With all that said, this is ignoring the original point that the EU and NATO serve important roles in keeping stability in that region.
Yes it was. A strawman is attributing an argument to your opponent that your opponent never made. I said at least 5x that I've never said that and explained why I wasn't making that argument. Even if it was withing context and within subject it wasn't the argument I was making.
You already admitted that it was about Germany and France: Even if you're talking about the "broader terms", it still wouldn't make talking about Germany and France going to war a strawman. Anyone who was historically literate about the EU would talk about Germany and France keeping peace with regards to the origins of the EU. Just admit you didn't know what the EU was originally for and had to look it up after I mentioned the fact.
It's a bit more complex than that though...as explained in the post you just quoted... It becomes a strawman when you say that is the argument that I was making. Actually, it looks like you didn't know exactly the origins of it. You failed to mention the ECSC which became before the EEC so maybe you didn't look it up hard enough. I don't know. I always knew what it was for, to have stability and unity for the region. Which is why I brought up that dissolving the EU would mean less stability (unless replaced with something) which was my argument.
It was the argument you were making since you referenced the origins of the EU. The problem is, you didn't know what you were saying. What came out of your stupid mouth was different from what you meant.
Like I said... But the problem is you didn't do your research properly or you wanted to desperately attribute that argument to me. If you had done it properly then you would have dropped the point, but we all know race realists aren't exactly the smartest of people by virtue of what they believe in so I understand your shortcomings when it comes to pure intelligence. Maybe do your research properly next time because you didn't get your initial explanation completely correct. See, I ignored it because I wanted you to address my initial argument...you didn't because well...I don't know. I'm not going to waste time trying to dive into your irrational mind.
