Not sure what you’re saying about US vetos

Good idea

Hopefully not

I can see good arguments on both sides. On one hand, the current mechanic hands every member state a veto on everything. On the other, if too many members get dragged into domestically unpopular adventures by a foreign majority, other countries will withdraw, either formally or by simply refusing to participate in Brussels.

Then again, given that one of the Heritage Foundation’s (ahem) “Trump Administration’s” stated goals is to dismantle the EU, perhaps Merz’s government are simply useful idiots

Mandela Effect on a global scale. I don’t like this timeline. I want to get back to the real one ASAP. ;)

In my defense, it was before dawn here. I’ll do better next time :D

FWIW, I generally agree with you about “Why bother?” With regard to Americans. We seem to have become a population dominated by zealots of one ilk or another in all the federally overrepresented states. It’s exhausting.

Most days, I think the US would be better off if Cornwallis hadn’t surrendered.

I don’t know why anyone bothers.

And yet, here you are. Feel free to stop at any time

Since they’re rights, they are inherent. You don’t get to vote on them

Nice ASSumption. Actually, yeah, I’d say exactly the same. Human rights are human rights. Fortunately, it isn’t up to people like you to decide who gets them

one of their members

Isn’t collective punishment a violation of human rights, according to the UN?

Because Prohibition and the War on Drugs worked so well in the US, I guess?

The trust problem in open source is that we can audit the published code, but we have no assurance that what’s published is what’s running

Fair point. Sorry if I misread it

I’m reminded almost daily of someone saying during the Cheney Administration “1984 was a warning, not a handbook!”

A lesser violation of privacy is still a violation of privacy. “It could be worse” isn’t a particularly persuasive argument