I realize that there are much bigger issues at hand right now,
Actually those issues aren't that big- at least they do not represent anything abnormal in the behaviour of the US or other similar governments.
The kind of injustice you highlighted actually happens all the time - Trump's decree - whilst stupid - I'm not defending it - has not created more that a small spike in the noise spectrum of US immigration injustice.
Of course his opponents have tried to make a big deal of it and have somewhat misrepresented it in order to do so.
However I think this story is actually more important - it should be allowed to be buried under the temporary and phoney kerfuffle about immigration policy.
Except that a nation is not a unified moral entity capable of "deserving" anything.
The statement is nonsense - no matter who said it.
In fact the refutation of this idea is the real point behind the story of Sodom.
From Genesis 18
"And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
26 And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes."
The story then goes on to progressively count down the 50 to smaller and smaller numbers - always with the same result - until Abraham realies which way this is going.
So no - a nation is not capable of "deserving" a government and even if it were then in the real world we note that nations often get governments that have been foisted on them by other nations (quite often the US - as many S. American countries will testify.)
Chile certainly didn't deserve Pinochet for example - so your quote is rubbish.
Maybe it's time to fight fire with fire here in the U.S. and start our own comment army.
I thought you/we already had!
You can tell when reason has gone out the window however when the name calling starts.
The right and left each have their own name calling vocabulary.
My problem is that I don't agree wholeheartedly with either side and sometimes you have to swallow your distaste and do something against your normal instincts.
For example I am ashamed to say it now but I once voted for a Ukip candidate in a euro election.
On that occasion the issues of sound copyright extension and software patents were up for debate and I had received a very unsatisfactory answer to a letter that I sent to the sitting (LibDem) MEP. Ukip on the otherhand had made it clear that they would vote against at least one of these - and since they really couldn't do much damage on other matters in the European Parliament I felt that was the right thing to do.
The one thing that amuses me now is the realisation that - thanks to Brexit they are likely to lose all parl;iamentary representation over the next few years!
Yes, it is nice to have solidarity, but not at the expense of sovereignty.
Sovereignty is over rated. North Korea has Sovereignty. It is, perhaps, the small country with the most sovereignty .
Does that make it a better place to be than the EU?
What matters is the degree to which ordinary people have a say in their destiny. However (as the referendum has shown) it is important that their "say" is exercised within a framework of rational debate.
true, but 2010 was the second time a majority winner didn't get elected in that time,
Actually no government since 1931 has had an overall majority of the popular vote.
But only in 1950 and 1974(Feb) has the election neen won in spite of another party having a bigger percentage of the vote. In all other recent elections the "winning party" had the largest popular vote.
Which in practice meant that everybody who voted leave projected their own idea of what should happen onto the "leave" concept.
Worse than that most people will have thought in terms of outcomes - without ever reasoning through as to how "leave" could (actually) deliver those outcomes.
Arguably exactly the same thing will have happened with many Trump voters, although in that case there is more opportunity for any damage he does to be undone at a later date. (However having said that I am not convinced of the ability of the US political system to actually throw up anybody better. In my mind US politics has been in freefall quality-wise since Reagan was elected. )
It's the same type of situation as the US - while the system allowed May (or Trump) to be in charge within the technicalities of the system, they were not voted in by the people with a majority or a mandate.
Actually Trump is in much better shape than May here.
In both systems you have to take the point that all the campaigning effort, getting out the vote etc takes into account the rules as they actually are - not the rules that maybe ought to have been. So, although Trump lost the popular vote under current rules that does not necessarily mean that he would have lost had the popular vote been the deciding factor.
May, on the other hand has taken over without an election on the basis of a referendum where she was on the losing side and has promptly morphed into something like an extremist in opposition to everything that she said beforehand.
y she has a ~3% lead in a referendum that was taken when people thought Cameron was going to be the one to implement it,
What is more she campaigned on the remain side - thus no-one could have predicted what has happened even when voting in the referendum - still less at the election a year before.
The referendum simply rejected remaining in the EU on the terms that Cameron had negotiated. Some people thought that a no vote would simply precipitate a renegotiation of those terms followed by a re-run. This idea was even expressed by Boris Johnson at one point.
I think if the referendum question had said:
Do you want to remain in the EU or do you want to be cannon fodder for US corporate interests then we might have got a different result.
Well - No UK government has actually had 50% of the vote since WW2. So we have been beholden to those technicalities since just about forever. AND Theresa May was one who complained loudly when Gordon Brown took over without an election even though everyone knew at the previous election advance that this would happen - so she is a total hypocrit on that point.
May just wanted to be prime minister. My prediction is that she will live to regret it.