Adding to Current Events for its about UK leaving the EU

So, are there any bets on the German and Italian ships turning on Kongou next?

Added Reporter Aoba pool, because... Aoba. haha.

*song starts playing inside head*

What's funnier about this is that apparently the idiots that voted to leave the EU didn't even know what the European Union is until after the leave.

Cyanide_Exploder said:

What's funnier about this is that apparently the idiots that voted to leave the EU didn't even know what the European Union is until after the leave.

It's something that's fairly popular in Belgium, apparently.

mamott99 said:

So, are there any bets on the German and Italian ships turning on Kongou next?

You can bet there will be fanart of the Italian and German ship girls turning on Kongou, but it will take time since the rest of the world are still shocked that Brexit has actually happened.

I must admit, I'm amazed that Japanese TV Networks did a blow-by-blow bulletin of the UK Referendum on Friday... well, except for TV Tokyo.

https://twitter.com/seimei1992/status/746208269459329024

Cyanide_Exploder said:

What's funnier about this is that apparently the idiots that voted to leave the EU didn't even know what the European Union is until after the leave.

It was the older demographics that voted to leave. My guess is that they know somewhat more about it than the young folk.

Can see the demographic breakdowns here: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36616028.

General information: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887

BBC said:

Could MPs block an EU exit?

Could the necessary legislation pass the Commons, given that a lot of MPs - all SNP and Lib Dems, nearly all Labour and many Conservatives - were in favour of staying?

The referendum result is not legally binding - Parliament still has to pass the laws that will get Britain out of the 28 nation bloc, starting with the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act.

The withdrawal agreement also has to be ratified by Parliament - the House of Lords and/or the Commons could vote against ratification, according to a House of Commons library report.

In practice, Conservative MPs who voted to remain in the EU would be whipped to vote with the government. Any who defied the whip would have to face the wrath of voters at the next general election.

One scenario that could see the referendum result overturned, is if MPs forced a general election and a party campaigned on a promise to keep Britain in the EU, got elected and then claimed that the election mandate topped the referendum one.

Two-thirds of MPs would have to vote for a general election to be held before the next scheduled one in 2020.

Cyanide_Exploder said:

What's funnier about this is that apparently the idiots that voted to leave the EU didn't even know what the European Union is until after the leave.

Based on what, anecdotal evidence? Gotcha news from liberal websites? This is such a lefty tell: "The only reason you disagree with me is because you're stupid."

styles_miner said:

It was the older demographics that voted to leave. My guess is that they know somewhat more about it than the young folk.

Maybe if the younger demographics actually turned up to vote instead of spending the whole day whining over the EU Referendum over social media, things might've been different.

Cyanide_Exploder said:

What's funnier about this is that apparently the idiots that voted to leave the EU didn't even know what the European Union is until after the leave.

To be fair, a lot of the people who suddenly started Googling "what happens if we leave the EU" after the vote could've been Remain voters who wanted to know more about what they were in for.

aceofspudz said:

This is such a lefty tell: "The only reason you disagree with me is because you're stupid."

Shouldn't apply that to only one side of the issue. It is common for both sides to do that to downplay the other and belittle their intelligence.

[deleted]

Skribulous said:

Maybe if the younger demographics actually turned up to vote instead of spending the whole day whining over the EU Referendum over social media, things might've been different.

They were too busy staying in their parents' basement, drinking Mountain Dew and eating chicken tendies. (Or whatever the UK equivalent is)

styles_miner said:

They were too busy staying in their parents' basement, drinking Mountain Dew and eating chicken tendies. (Or whatever the UK equivalent is)

Fish and chips?

Also, Mountain Dew is the drink of choice of millennials in London and not Lucozade?

No, no, try chocolate hobnobs and hot cocoa. And a stack of Biggles novels.

It probably was best that they left the EU anyways. The only purpose of these kind of organizations is to civilly end disputes in order to prevent war and conflict. However, like any organization with eyes on peace, their pursuit of avoiding any conflict at all leads to them getting into wars due to not addressing threats when they are small. Probably most people in the UK kind of realized the EU didn't really care about their safety when they try to ban someone like Donald Trump, but then they let in muslims freely and force people to house them. Still, I am surprised that the UK did leave the EU. My experience with europeans in general is that they like control and restriction "for the greater good" and the one world order kind of concepts.

Also I didn't know we had a Kongou forgot english. What a great pool.

aceofspudz said:

Based on what, anecdotal evidence? Gotcha news from liberal websites? This is such a lefty tell: "The only reason you disagree with me is because you're stupid."

And this is a typical arch-conservative neo-nazi tell: unprovokedly attacking anyone that doesn't agree with them and labeling them as no-good commie leftist hippies.

[deleted]

cirno_goes_in_fridge said:

There is literally nothing wrong with being a Nazi.

Tell that to the Jews.

As a side note, the Nazi population in the US is pathetically huge.

cirno_goes_in_fridge said:

There is literally nothing wrong with being a Nazi.

There are so many things wrong with this statement that it isn't funny.

Farran said:

There are so many things wrong with this statement that it isn't funny.

I guess you just do Nazi the humor in his statement.

Eh? Eeeh?

I'll see myself out...

cirno_goes_in_fridge said:

There is literally nothing wrong with being a Nazi.

Not sure if sarcasm.

Keo said:

I guess you just do Nazi the humor in his statement.

Eh? Eeeh?

I'll see myself out...

I dunno, I fail to see the humor in saying that it's ok to affiliate yourself with a group that mass murdered millions of people just because they had the gall to be of a certain religious group.

At least in wars, everyone dies on the battlefield equally.

Do we not learn ANYTHING from history?

Man, who needs a solution for overpopulation when we'll just kill each other over the stupidest reasons anyway?

Farran said:

I dunno, I fail to see the humor in saying that it's ok to affiliate yourself with a group that mass murdered millions of people just because they had the gall to be of a certain religious group.

At least in wars, everyone dies on the battlefield equally.

Do we not learn ANYTHING from history?

Man, who needs a solution for overpopulation when we'll just kill each other over the stupidest reasons anyway?

What you think is a stupid reason for warfare, was a big deal for them at the time. Heck, all wars were a big deal for the participants since they dealt with the integrity of a country's sovereignty which translated to survival. History has not shown that warfare is useless, rather it has shown how important a society must be able to wage warfare. Si vis pacem, para bellum. In a first world life where we are so insulated from conflict due to the solid infrastructure of our countries, a lot of anti-war propaganda starts being spouted out about how we should become defenseless for a hope that no one tries to come and take what we have. And of course, global organizations like EU starts coming in to grab power by offering security for freedom.

Ironically, these global unions are what cause warfare since warfare is the inherent manifestation of a countries will and global unions suppress the expression of that will. Sure, if you are on top you like the world order, but if you are on bottom you want to overthrow it. Of course, just because you are on top you have no obligation to give your power and resources to the little guy. Hence a war starts. Wars do not have to be founded on a moral conflict to be worth fighting. Stability and order is also worth fighting simply for pragmatic means. You don't want your country to end up like an Africa or something due to another country running you over.

As far as the Nazi topic. I kinda see where Cirno was heading with that. I am a firm believer that WWII was caused by Britain and France due to placing unreasonable debt on the Germans with the intention of ruining them, and then not taking responsibility for their actions and crushing the Germans early on when the Nazi party first got into power. The Nazis simply wanted to save their country. Of course, that doesn't mean we were wrong in fighting them, our interests come first. The whole topic of WWII is whitewashed about Jews and concentration camps, but the reality is that they were a very small part of the conflict. Hell, we didn't even know about it until we moved in on the Nazi's. Jews were not the reason for WWII just as slaves were not the reason for the civil war. We fought the Nazi's because they threatened our way of life. Period. We didn't do this for Jews, we did it for ourselves. The problem is soft people of today see that as a greedy reason so they want to warp history to match their arbitrary beliefs of honor. Self interest is the key to survival, and only those who win can be allowed the luxury of compassion and providing welfare. If defending oneself isn't honorable, nothing is. Of course, some might say America was never invaded, so it wasn't defense. That is ignorance of military strategy, an offense is a part of a defense. Sun Tzu said (paraphrase) that a defensive war fought, is one lost even if won. Offense is the only way you win wars, be it offensive or defensive by nature.

We seem to forget that loyalty to a country is still a very important part to leading a civilized life, and with the growing people subscribing to the membership of a "one world order", I expect we will have many more "Nazi Germanies" in the future that continue to grow as a threat but no one does anything due to bureaucracy and political correctness. Actually, hell, ISIS and the growing muslim threat is probably the very reason UK left the EU.

To the people taking "There is literally nothing wrong with being a nazi" comment seriously, it's a reference to somebody posting "There is literally nothing wrong with being Jewish" on a thread on 4chan's /pol/, a board that was (is) reknowned among the other boards for being full of nazis.

Calm down. You're taking a string of letters on the internet a little too seriously, it's a joke.

79248cm/s said:

Jews were not the reason for WWII just as slaves were not the reason for the civil war. We fought the Nazi's because they threatened our way of life. Period. We didn't do this for Jews, we did it for ourselves. The problem is soft people of today see that as a greedy reason so they want to warp history to match their arbitrary beliefs of honor. Self interest is the key to survival, and only those who win can be allowed the luxury of compassion and providing welfare. If defending oneself isn't honorable, nothing is. Of course, some might say America was never invaded, so it wasn't defense. That is ignorance of military strategy, an offense is a part of a defense. Sun Tzu said (paraphrase) that a defensive war fought, is one lost even if won. Offense is the only way you win wars, be it offensive or defensive by nature.

We seem to forget that loyalty to a country is still a very important part to leading a civilized life, and with the growing people subscribing to the membership of a "one world order", I expect we will have many more "Nazi Germanies" in the future that continue to grow as a threat but no one does anything due to bureaucracy and political correctness. Actually, hell, ISIS and the growing muslim threat is probably the very reason UK left the EU.

The South attacked the North after Lincoln got elected becasue they were terrified he was going to allow northern states to not return escaped slaves.

So slaves were THE reason for the US Civil War... unless you interpret it as the desire fo the South to force its will on the North.

ISIS is the newest Nazi Germany/Imperial Japan, fascistic, religiously/racially biased, ultra-control-freak, and extremely aggressive.

The UK left the EU for exactly the reason why Trump is popular in the US: Angry White (and very often) Male Syndrome. They are no longer in control, and thus they fear and hate anyone who seems to be replacing them.

You SHOULD note that retribution for certain acts (e.g. how England promised the formation of Israel... a pretty much religiously defined state... on the holy land of THREE religions) is perfectly natural and understandable.

That does not mean not fighting.

Using more subversive means than nuking parts of Europe for the sake of being "unpredictable" as Trump calls it works much better than throwing nukes arbitrarily, locking up anyone who doesn't agree with you, and everything else Trump has proposed to date. On immigration... Anyone who doesn't think that the vetting process for Muslim immigrants and tourists is already extremely tight in the US is welcome to investigate whether or not there is an invisible staircase to heaven that can only be climbed by stepping out of the Statue of Liberty's torch. (There is, but it requires a long, long way down as a detour, and the heaven you end up in may not be the one you expected)

Anyone who thinks that England can't install better vetting processes without leaving the EU is equally off his rocker

Guardian54 said:
...

Trump is popular in the US because he is a law abiding guy which is radical in the modern world only because we are used to laws being interpreted depending on which administration is in power. He isn't promoting anything new or radical, everything he wants is already written in the letter of our law. He just wants people to actually follow and enforce it. As far as "white men" being the cause, that is an immature comment with no basis in reality. Many Trump supporters you call "white" are Latino in heritage, and there are many other races (such as myself, asian) who support Trump, just as there are different races who supported Hillary. Just like how the media called Zimmerman "white". Pulling the race card doesn't work for serious discussion unless you think people's beliefs are bound by race.

As far as security, talk to the guys on the ground. There are muslims in this country that have ties to terrorist organizations but are accepted on ground of political correctness. However, these people are not the biggest problem, the real workhorses of islamic domination are coming through the mexican border since ethnically, they can pass off as mexican and the accent of the language is not far of in many cases. Even as far back as 2004 our border patrol has been warning us of the muslim threat coming through the south mingling with the illegal aliens.

The England couldn't install a better vetting process because the whole point of the EU is that international affairs is not the countries power, but the unions discretion. That was the whole point why England left, they were not allowed to run immigration as they saw fit for their own country.

79248cm/s said:

Trump is popular in the US because he is a law abiding guy which is radical in the modern world only because we are used to laws being interpreted depending on which administration is in power. He isn't promoting anything new or radical, everything he wants is already written in the letter of our law.

Logan Act and FECA (soliciting English and Scottish MPs for campaign contributions, really?).

Less clear-cut but still sketchy would be skirting immigration laws (abuse of H-1B Visas) with his modelling agency (and on a related note, *cough* a certain Soviet spy and noted plagiarist Melania *cough*), borderline fraud with Trump University and flagrant abuse of eminent domain to seize properties of people who wouldn't sell to him.

'though I'd admit, the Clintons probably broke far more laws if we're talking about sheer quantity.

NNescio said:

Logan Act and FECA (soliciting English and Scottish MPs for campaign contributions, really?).

Less clear-cut but still sketchy would be skirting immigration laws (abuse of H-1B Visas) with his modelling agency (and on a related note, *cough* a certain Soviet spy and noted plagiarist Melania *cough*), borderline fraud with Trump University and flagrant abuse of eminent domain to seize properties of people who wouldn't sell to him.

'though I'd admit, the Clintons probably broke far more laws if we're talking about sheer quantity.

Trump has had 3500 lawsuits, about half and half by and against, him over the last 30 years.

3500, in 30 years. That's over one lawsuit against him per six days, and a lot of them are by groups.

Lawsuits only happen if someone thinks they have a case. Being able to piss off enough people in a way that makes them think they have a case (as opposed to real scam ARTISTS who don't leave you with a case) and have that many groups sue you, more than one a week, is a good way on the international stage for the world to cordon off your country and cut all communications... and then form some manner of global defence initiative (ahem not copyright anymore because Tiberian Dawn and Sun are freeware now) and allocate enough anti-missiles to contain any tantrum. Oh, and your submariners will have to eat sometime, the ones that didn't defect once they heard of the containment zone.

I do rather like Danbooru discussions, especially about politics. I mean even if I don't agree with everything I see it's always good to understand others' perspectives. Plus, people are relatively civil with each other, which is sadly a rarity these days.

Guardian54 said:

Trump has had 3500 lawsuits, about half and half by and against, him over the last 30 years.

3500, in 30 years. That's over one lawsuit against him per six days, and a lot of them are by groups.

Lawsuits only happen if someone thinks they have a case. Being able to piss off enough people in a way that makes them think they have a case (as opposed to real scam ARTISTS who don't leave you with a case) and have that many groups sue you, more than one a week, is a good way on the international stage for the world to cordon off your country and cut all communications... and then form some manner of global defence initiative (ahem not copyright anymore because Tiberian Dawn and Sun are freeware now) and allocate enough anti-missiles to contain any tantrum. Oh, and your submariners will have to eat sometime, the ones that didn't defect once they heard of the containment zone.

Walmarts gets hit by 5000 lawsuits per year, and no, lawsuits don't have to have a good reason behind them. Frivolous ones happen all the freakin' time, and the deeper your pockets, the more likely you're going to get hit by one.

You know what the appeal of Trump is? He hasn't been running for President his whole life. He's not a career politician. He doesn't have a family of politicians around him. He's not defined by his political aspirations and affiliations.

And personally, I like him for one reason; I know for a FACT that he can fire people, and more than anything that's what the Federal government needs; LOTS OF PEOPLE BEING FIRED. You can vote someone out of office, but the same douchebags are still in charge at the beaucratic level year after year, decade after decade, and they basically get a pass for everything because they're so thoroughly entrenched that getting rid of them is just too damn inconvenient.