No, it's me pointing out that people talk shit all the time; but when it comes to the nut cutting, they're nowhere to be found. People like the idea of something more than they like the reality of it. It's easy to talk big when you know that nothing's going to come from it.
Except all practical examples of your "Big Game" sentiment are working exactly in reverse of what you claim. I maintain that it is innocuous double-speak that cannot be truly tested without an actual vote or a war.
The South talked a big game about seceding. The states seceded in the 1850s.
England talked a big game about Brexit. They voted to leave.
Scotland talked a big game about defying their fellow Brits. They voted to stay.
Aside from your bar anecdotes, you're batting zero on this front.
I would never say 100% one way or the other.
Does this reflect your attitude solely on Britain or with all countries?
The Scottish buck the English because they've maintained a sense of self long before there was an America. The reason they want to remain in the EU is probably the same reason they decided to stay connected to the UK government in their last referendum on independence. They see the economic benefits outweighing everything else. I don't see how you are confounded as it's exactly what I described. ie Talking a big game but not following through on it.
This strikes me as a confused backpedal being marketed as common sense.
The Scots are no more familial with the EU than the English, and therefore they
would vote for staying in the EU for the same patriotic mindset that drove the English away from it even though both parties involved were aware of the financial benefits/pitfalls of leaving/staying.....No. Your reasoning doesn't have any solid premises.
"Boo, the EU! Hey, guys, let's set up a system of independent states that use and EU style trade agreement."
The EU is a centralized power and superstate prototype. They take money from all of the participating countries and redistribute it. Furthermore, their non-elected committee(s) have total control over who takes who in and how many regardless of the given country's feelings on the matter. With independence and sovereignty, every state would decide on its own where its money goes and who to take in from where. Your pretentious insinuation is bunk.
I think people are more likely to push for politicians and laws that curb immigration (aka The Donald)
Uh huh, and that's what they've been doing. Now how well has that worked out? How well has that worked out for the fucking
EU?
Obama is distributing migrants in the states against the people's representatives demand to stop (and they tend to roll over on those issues anyway) despite the culture that is clearly telling him that they don't want any of what his mentality is peddling. They are continually ignored. What kind of mindset do you that think that's going to create? How much faith do you honestly believe people have left in representative politics at this point? Why the fuck do you think Britain was pushed over the edge to leave in the first place?
