Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

He is not the hero he need, but he is the hero we deserve!

Something I was thinking about today. Isaac Asimov said: "If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul." What if people applied the same logic to politics?

All other things being equal, if the opposition party's candidate was a good and honorable person who actually means what they say, and your party's candidate was a dishonest, cheating scumbag who only says what people want to hear, who would you vote for? Would you still stay loyal to your party'c candidate, or would you vote for the literally better human being?

For me, if this year was, say, Clinton vs. McCain, that would be no contest: McCain for me. But for our R friends here, what if it was, say, Cruz/Trump vs.FDR/JFK/Truman? I'm just picking names as an example, it's more the general idea I'm asking about.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

For me, if this year was, say, Clinton vs. McCain, that would be no contest: McCain for me. But for our R friends here, what if it was, say, Cruz/Trump vs.FDR/JFK/Truman? I'm just picking names as an example, it's more the general idea I'm asking about.

I lean left... but McCain's voting record, as it's become more and more open to public scrutiny, IMO puts him around the same level as Clinton. I most definitely remember him running on being the "veterans' choice" in congress, and yet, time and time again, he has voted down initiatives that would help Vets. Not a very honorable thing to do.


Now, speaking as someone who leans left, if we put some of the best "modern" republican names up, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike, Reagan, and put them against Clinton, Sanders or Obama (just to give a broader spectrum), I would have to say that I would probably vote for Teddy or Ike over most of them, though Roosevelt's Trust Busting/Monopoly busting ways kind of run right in line with Sanders' current platform, which makes things difficult.

So for me, in the spirit of the actual question... It greatly depends on the actual platforms being run on. If we assume that Cruz is 100% honest about the things he says, I am voting against him 99 times out of 100. And that 1 time would have to be, I don't know... Robot Stalin or something?

 d-usa wrote:
So unless we tear down thousand year old historical structures, we can't criticize people who have unrealistic ideas about new structures?

This is getting extra stupid.

Riiiiight...

All I'm saying is that he needed a little self awareness.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:


He is not the hero he need, but he is the hero we deserve!

Nice!

@thread: CNN is holding the next townhall for Bernie and Clinton.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So unless we tear down thousand year old historical structures, we can't criticize people who have unrealistic ideas about new structures?

This is getting extra stupid.

Riiiiight...

All I'm saying is that he needed a little self awareness.

I'm sure the Pontiff appreciates you reminding him that he lives in a city with walls older than our country.


Also, you aren't really saying it, just merely repeating it from Twitter or whatever cesspool else you dredge this stupid gak from.

 jasper76 wrote:

I was never taught growing up Catholic that non-Catholics are not Christians, and I don't believe its the current position of the Catholic Church. I could be wrong.

It would be a significant shift in doctrine for the Pope to refer to non-Catholics as Christian, as the Church has historically affirmed the stance that the Catholic Church is the only Christian Church.

 whembly wrote:

Pope should shut his chaw unless he's willing to tear down the Vatican's walls and redistribute's it's wealth:

The Vatican City's walls are a tourist attraction that can be described as wealth for not only the Vatican, but the city of Rome and Italy in general. The Vatican's wealth is redistributed by its mere existence.

 whembly wrote:
I just find it interesting that Presidents really have that much of an effect on the economy.

Presidents can’t affect the economy that much. They just like to pretend they can, in order to make their economic platforms look a lot nicer than they really are.

Here's the thing, he can only propose most of the things and maybe Congress will deliberate and pass it.

Of course. Even policies that are based entirely on realistic numbers are still unlikely to get past congress in their original form. At best you get a watered down version, and more likely you’ll only get some parts of your total program across the line.

It’s like asking for a pony for Christmas, or asking for a unicorn. You almost certainly won’t get the pony, but at least your parents can be comfortable knowing you understand what reality is. Well Sanders, and most of the Republican field, they're asking for magical flying unicorns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Here, it does NOT lay out any *specific* process by which the Senate can refuse its consent.

I have not at any point said that what the Republicans are doing is unconstitutional, and you know that. So stop pretending otherwise to avoid recognising my actual point.

It does NOT indicate whether it must do so by taking a vote, or whether it can simply refuse to consider Obama's nominee at all.

There has not, at any point in the history of your country, been a moment where one party planned to simply reject any SC nomination until an election. Never.

This is, like the blackmail to hit the debt ceiling, the Republicans moving out in to deep, uncharted water. And that’s the issue. If you hold out for a year, then Clinton wins in a tight race while Republicans hold the senate, why not hold out another 4 years? If Cruz wins but Democrats sneak the senate (or just decide to use a minority filibuster), then what’s to stop them arguing that they ‘deserved’ the appointment and so they’re going to hold out for the progressive they should have gotten?

At some point you have to recognise that accepted process has value, because the alternative, Calvinball as you’ve called it, will open the door to all kinds of unexpected new changes down the road.

So its no more "extreme" to refuse to vote on any nominee, than it is to go through the dog and pony show of having a hearing & a guarantee'ed "no" vote.

Uh, pre-determining a ‘no’ vote for purely political reasons is also dangerously extreme. Your argument here is something like a defence that firing a gun blindly out of a moving guy is no more dangerous that firing blindly while walking, therefore both are okay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
All other things being equal, if the opposition party's candidate was a good and honorable person who actually means what they say, and your party's candidate was a dishonest, cheating scumbag who only says what people want to hear, who would you vote for? Would you still stay loyal to your party'c candidate, or would you vote for the literally better human being?

I think there are times when policy matters a lot more than how honorable a person is. For instance, if I was given a choice between Nixon and GW Bush, I'd pick Nixon every single day of the week. He was a pretty terrible human being, but his policies were a lot better.

Then there's measures of character that get complex. GHW Bush famously raised taxes, despite saying he wouldn't. On the one hand he broke a promise. On the other hand he saw what was best for the country and acted on it, despite the political cost.

Don't get me wrong, I think you make a good point. Character certainly matters. I'm just not sure it's the only criteria.

 dogma wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

I was never taught growing up Catholic that non-Catholics are not Christians, and I don't believe its the current position of the Catholic Church. I could be wrong.

It would be a significant shift in doctrine for the Pope to refer to non-Catholics as Christian, as the Church has historically affirmed the stance that the Catholic Church is the only Christian Church.

 whembly wrote:

Pope should shut his chaw unless he's willing to tear down the Vatican's walls and redistribute's it's wealth:

The Vatican City's walls are a tourist attraction that can be described as wealth for not only the Vatican, but the city of Rome and Italy in general. The Vatican's wealth is redistributed by its mere existence.

When I was growing up catholic my sunday school teacher actually taught us that non Catholic Christians were not real Christians and were all going to hell.

Of course that violated the second Vatican councils stance.

Southern Baptist is Best Baptist!

Chicago 'burbs Catholicism best ism

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Here, it does NOT lay out any *specific* process by which the Senate can refuse its consent.

I have not at any point said that what the Republicans are doing is unconstitutional, and you know that. So stop pretending otherwise to avoid recognising my actual point.

Fair enough... I'll acknowledge your point down below...

It does NOT indicate whether it must do so by taking a vote, or whether it can simply refuse to consider Obama's nominee at all.

There has not, at any point in the history of your country, been a moment where one party planned to simply reject any SC nomination until an election. Never.

This is, like the blackmail to hit the debt ceiling, the Republicans moving out in to deep, uncharted water. And that’s the issue. If you hold out for a year, then Clinton wins in a tight race while Republicans hold the senate, why not hold out another 4 years? If Cruz wins but Democrats sneak the senate (or just decide to use a minority filibuster), then what’s to stop them arguing that they ‘deserved’ the appointment and so they’re going to hold out for the progressive they should have gotten?

At some point you have to recognise that accepted process has value, because the alternative, Calvinball as you’ve called it, will open the door to all kinds of unexpected new changes down the road.

So its no more "extreme" to refuse to vote on any nominee, than it is to go through the dog and pony show of having a hearing & a guarantee'ed "no" vote.

Uh, pre-determining a ‘no’ vote for purely political reasons is also dangerously extreme. Your argument here is something like a defence that firing a gun blindly out of a moving guy is no more dangerous that firing blindly while walking, therefore both are okay.

I'll tell you why, it's about power and shaping the court to a desired ideology.

The Democrats had it. If you want to talk about extremely dangerous precedent, look no further than Reid invoking the nuke option to do away with the filibuster rules. He did this to facilitate packing the DC Appellate Courts with liberal justices.

So... forgive me that my "give a feth o meter" is non existent here.

But, your fearmongering over the idea that if Clinton or Sanders win the Presidency, that the Senate would hold out for another 4 years is unfounded. It'd be totally untenable that they do that.

So ask yourself this... why are the calls for the parties to 'rise above ideology and partisanship' only seem to be in effect when the Republicans are the majority? As regular Republican voters have seen, whenever the Republican party tries to take that "higher ground", they lose.

Hence this is why you're seeing these "insurgent" candidates having popularity now.

Whembly, I've corrected you before on this.
"Packing" of a court is a very specific thing. It is adding justices (that you then appoint) to shift the balance on the court. Filling vacancies created by justices leaving the court by any means is not, and never has been packing.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Whembly, I've corrected you before on this.
"Packing" of a court is a very specific thing. It is adding justices (that you then appoint) to shift the balance on the court. Filling vacancies created by justices leaving the court by any means is not, and never has been packing.

I'll submit I was hyperbolic in this respect. So yes, you're technically correct.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
But for our R friends here, what if it was, say, Cruz/Trump vs.FDR/JFK/Truman? I'm just picking names as an example, it's more the general idea I'm asking about.

Okay, since you asked, I'll provide you an honest answer from my own personal perspective. I would tend to default to the Republican candidate simply because that candidate is more likely to push an agenda that I support. However, that is not an "all in" position. If we wind up with a Bob Dole candidate, I will certainly vote for a JFK (D) or Truman instead because I feel that Senator Dole betrayed the Republican base. Like Hillary, he seemed to be running because he was "anointed" and was dismissive of those of us in the base. When asked about the Contract with America (those items that didn't get passed and sent to the President), he said, "I thought we did that. As far as I'm concerned, we're done with that." which showed me that he didn't care about the issues the base thought important and was just running because "it was his turn."

When McCain nominated Palin, I first thought that this was an interesting choice. Then we found out she was possessed by the cast of Looney Tunes, et al, with Woody Woodpecker acting as Grand Marshal of the parade. I would not have voted for a FDR even in this case, but JFK or even Truman? Yes. Either would be far better than what we actually wound up with.

Romney wasn't a bad candidate and would have made a decent if unremarkable President but he just couldn't come off as empathetic toward the common person. He was also very passive in the last debate when he needed to be assertive. That performance likely cost him the election although his lackluster campaign in the previous month may have made it a moot point. I would have voted for Romney over any of the three Democrats you listed.

Now, in this election, (at this current moment in time) I would vote, in order, for: Rubio, Cruz, JFK, Truman, and lastly Trump (but I would be holding my nose in Trump's case). Hillary is there because "it's her turn" and "she's owed it". I loath her, her corruption personified, and her lies and cover-ups, and her grating shrill voice. Sanders is an avowed Socialist so he's too far to the left for me to consider, even with a Republican congress in place.

 Breotan wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
But for our R friends here, what if it was, say, Cruz/Trump vs.FDR/JFK/Truman? I'm just picking names as an example, it's more the general idea I'm asking about.

Okay, since you asked, I'll provide you an honest answer from my own personal perspective. I would tend to default to the Republican candidate simply because that candidate is more likely to push an agenda that I support. However, that is not an "all in" position. If we wind up with a Bob Dole candidate, I will certainly vote for a JFK (D) or Truman instead because I feel that Senator Dole betrayed the Republican base. Like Hillary, he seemed to be running because he was "anointed" and was dismissive of those of us in the base. When asked about the Contract with America (those items that didn't get passed and sent to the President), he said, "I thought we did that. As far as I'm concerned, we're done with that." which showed me that he didn't care about the issues the base thought important and was just running because "it was his turn."

When McCain nominated Palin, I first thought that this was an interesting choice. Then we found out she was possessed by the cast of Looney Tunes, et al, with Woody Woodpecker acting as Grand Marshal of the parade. I would not have voted for a FDR even in this case, but JFK or even Truman? Yes. Either would be far better than what we actually wound up with.

Romney wasn't a bad candidate and would have made a decent if unremarkable President but he just couldn't come off as empathetic toward the common person. He was also very passive in the last debate when he needed to be assertive. That performance likely cost him the election although his lackluster campaign in the previous month may have made it a moot point. I would have voted for Romney over any of the three Democrats you listed.

Now, in this election, (at this current moment in time) I would vote, in order, for: Rubio, Cruz, JFK, Truman, and lastly Trump (but I would be holding my nose in Trump's case). Hillary is there because "it's her turn" and "she's owed it". I loath her, her corruption personified, and her lies and cover-ups, and her grating shrill voice. Sanders is an avowed Socialist so he's too far to the left for me to consider, even with a Republican congress in place.

+1000

My order would be: Rubio, Cruz, hypothetical-JFK, Bush, Kasich, hypothetical-Truman, Carson and lastly Trump.

I see it was a mistake for me to use any names in my question, because that's not what I'm asking about. Simply put, would you vote for the devil from your party over the saint from the other party? Or does the basic quality of the person's humanity matter?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I see it was a mistake for me to use any names in my question, because that's not what I'm asking about. Simply put, would you vote for the devil from your party over the saint from the other party?

If I truly believe that, then no, I would likely cross party and vote for the saint.

Or does the basic quality of the person's humanity matter?

Not exactly sure what you're asking for...

Are you saying that Martians and Lizardmen exists?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Simply put, would you vote for the devil from your party over the saint from the other party? Or does the basic quality of the person's humanity matter?

The TL-DR of my previous post is, it depends. It depends on the devil, the saint, the types of policies either would put forth, and which would be the least damaging to my own ideology/social values.

Here's a question. If the election happens and Clinton (or Sanders) is elected, but the R's maintain control of the H&S, would those of you who are OK with them blocking any nomination be OK with the continuing to block any nomination?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Here's a question. If the election happens and Clinton (or Sanders) is elected, but the R's maintain control of the H&S, would those of you who are OK with them blocking any nomination be OK with the continuing to block any nomination?

No. Because their position now is that we want the voters to have a say.

If Sanders or Clinton were to be elected, then the voters has spoken.

FWIW, I'm very dubious that the Republicans hangs onto the Senate.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Here's a question. If the election happens and Clinton (or Sanders) is elected, but the R's maintain control of the H&S, would those of you who are OK with them blocking any nomination be OK with the continuing to block any nomination?

No. Because their position now is that we want the voters to have a say.

If Sanders or Clinton were to be elected, then the voters has spoken.

FWIW, I'm very dubious that the Republicans hangs onto the Senate.

The voters have spoken now. They voted for Obama knowing that if during those four years something happened to a member of the supreme court he would have to nominate a replacement.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Here's a question. If the election happens and Clinton (or Sanders) is elected, but the R's maintain control of the H&S, would those of you who are OK with them blocking any nomination be OK with the continuing to block any nomination?

No. Because their position now is that we want the voters to have a say.

If Sanders or Clinton were to be elected, then the voters has spoken.

FWIW, I'm very dubious that the Republicans hangs onto the Senate.

You know that talking point you just regurgitated just makes you look like a fool, right? I mean, do you honestly believe that presidents are only in office for three years? You really shouldn't because it's an extremely fething stupid thing to say.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Here's a question. If the election happens and Clinton (or Sanders) is elected, but the R's maintain control of the H&S, would those of you who are OK with them blocking any nomination be OK with the continuing to block any nomination?

No. Because their position now is that we want the voters to have a say.

If Sanders or Clinton were to be elected, then the voters has spoken.

FWIW, I'm very dubious that the Republicans hangs onto the Senate.

You know that talking point you just regurgitated just makes you look like a fool, right? I mean, do you honestly believe that presidents are only in office for three years? You really shouldn't because it's an extremely fething stupid thing to say.

He's never read your rags, don't you know?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

The voters have spoken now. They voted for Obama knowing that if during those four years something happened to a member of the supreme court he would have to nominate a replacement.

this right here... Obama isn't in office until November 2016, he's in office until January 2017. There MIGHT be some teeth to the position of "we need to wait to appoint a new justice until the people's votes have spoken for who will be president" IF another justice dies say, Thanksgiving night, or on December 17th or something.

But that isn't what has happened, and thus, the arguments they made in 2005 of "doing your job and appointing someone" most definitely should reflect back onto the bull gak they are doing now.

Voters have "spoken" in 2014 when the GOP took the majority.

We can play this game all day guys.

Actually, maybe ya'll should listen to Harry Reid when he said this on the Senate floor on May 19th, 2005:

The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say that the Senate has a duty to give Presidential appointees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying very nominee receives a vote.

 whembly wrote:

But, your fearmongering over the idea that if Clinton or Sanders win the Presidency, that the Senate would hold out for another 4 years is unfounded. It'd be totally untenable that they do that.

If the GOP maintains control of the Senate in 2016, and a Democrat is elected President, it has no incentive to hold a hearing for a Democrat appointee as there is a good chance it would gain seats in 2018 due to conservative preference for GOP obstructionism.

 whembly wrote:

So ask yourself this... why are the calls for the parties to 'rise above ideology and partisanship' only seem to be in effect when the Republicans are the majority? As regular Republican voters have seen, whenever the Republican party tries to take that "higher ground", they lose.

Reagan called for Party members to rise above ideology when the Democrats were in power. It was really the Republican Revolution that turned the GOP into an ideologically tight group which reveled in dirty tactics, but didn't manage to accomplish anything. It loses when it plays clean because a lot of its ideas are simply bad.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Here's a question. If the election happens and Clinton (or Sanders) is elected, but the R's maintain control of the H&S, would those of you who are OK with them blocking any nomination be OK with the continuing to block any nomination?

No. Because their position now is that we want the voters to have a say.

If Sanders or Clinton were to be elected, then the voters has spoken.

FWIW, I'm very dubious that the Republicans hangs onto the Senate.

What about the people who voted for Obama in 2012? They do not count anymore? Their say means nothing? That is incredibly insulting honestly. You are basically saying that the people who voted for Obama should not have a voice.

If you agree to this, I am going to give you a heads up, you are saying that certain peoples votes do not matter. Do you believe that the people who voted for Obama in 2012 do not matter?

ah, 2014, when the Dems let things slip up. No enthusiasm is what allowed the angry old white guys to vote their Republican polits into office as the Dem candidates ran from Obama, and played like Rep light, most folks hate the "light" version of anything, Beer, soda, food, so why go weak when you can go full tilt?

Bernie has folks fired up this time for a change Obama did nto deliver, (Although he soon saw the obstructionism, so maybe he gave up on change and went for clean up duty instead)

I can see if Bernie is the Dems candidate and becomes President, we will see progressive candidates amongst the Dems elected sweeping in a new era of change, and start the changes we need. It will not be over night though and will take more progressive officials elected and assigned over the next few years.

40yrs of Reaganism/trickle down theory and voodoo econimcs by the GOP has done much damage, assisted by (blame laid where due) the Dems who did not fight back hard enough and let the bullying and bluster do the harm it has done.

Less taxes for the rich and loopholes for the corporates to avoid paying taxes, cuts to social programs and other programs that helped make America run smoother, all the de-regulations and they cry "we need to end our spending"
Yet, so much for that BS as they sure spent trillions for the war that has raged since 2001.

Always plenty of money for wars but not our people and infrastructure, how is that? Is that some miracle money? No, it is misdirection along with the corporate welfare spent to fatten corporations up.

Oil company making 90billion in one quarter after expenses, does not to my mind deserve another 20billion in "subsidies" when there are folks losing jobs, going homeless, and hungry in our "richest and best nation on Earth"

Important announcement for American dakka members to keep them in the loop.

A major political event has been announced in Britain: on June 23rd, Britain will have a referendum on staying in or leaving the European Union.

What has this to do with the USA?

Well, America has always stated that it's in the USA's interests to have Britain in the EU. If Britain votes to leave, it could diminish Britain's importance to the USA, but to be fair, that's been happening since Thomas Gage ordered British troops to seize gunpowder and muskets from the Boston militias!

Anyway, our Prime Minister will probably be on the phone begging for an endorsement from Obama, or Hilary Clinton, or any other top politician/business leader in the USA, so don't be surprised if this crops up in the presidential campaign.

This referendum is a big deal in Britain. The ruling party, the conservatives (republicans) are pretty split on this, and there could be a political 'civil war' that goes on for years.

The British public is evenly divided as well. Many believe that the UK should free itself from the EU and forge a new role for itself in the wider world, whilst others want closer ties to Europe.

This question cuts at the heart of British identity since we lost the Empire. Should be push closer to the USA or should we push closer to Europe?

We've tried to be both over the years, and it never really worked. Now it'll be decided one way or another.

If there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Here's a question. If the election happens and Clinton (or Sanders) is elected, but the R's maintain control of the H&S, would those of you who are OK with them blocking any nomination be OK with the continuing to block any nomination?

No. Because their position now is that we want the voters to have a say.

If Sanders or Clinton were to be elected, then the voters has spoken.

FWIW, I'm very dubious that the Republicans hangs onto the Senate.

What about the people who voted for Obama in 2012? They do not count anymore? Their say means nothing? That is incredibly insulting honestly. You are basically saying that the people who voted for Obama should not have a voice.

If you agree to this, I am going to give you a heads up, you are saying that certain peoples votes do not matter. Do you believe that the people who voted for Obama in 2012 do not matter?

O.o

Obama still can nominate anyone he wants.

It's up to the Senate to determine how they conduct their bidness as to how they conduct their "Advise" and "Consent" function.

So, the Obama voters in 2012 does matter.

Just as the Senate voters in 2014 matters.

In other words, just like Obama winning in '12, the GOP winning in '14 also means that "Elections have consequences."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Important announcement for American dakka members to keep them in the loop.

A major political event has been announced in Britain: on June 23rd, Britain will have a referendum on staying in or leaving the European Union.

What has this to do with the USA?

Well, America has always stated that it's in the USA's interests to have Britain in the EU. If Britain votes to leave, it could diminish Britain's importance to the USA, but to be fair, that's been happening since Thomas Gage ordered British troops to seize gunpowder and muskets from the Boston militias!

Anyway, our Prime Minister will probably be on the phone begging for an endorsement from Obama, or Hilary Clinton, or any other top politician/business leader in the USA, so don't be surprised if this crops up in the presidential campaign.

This referendum is a big deal in Britain. The ruling party, the conservatives (republicans) are pretty split on this, and there could be a political 'civil war' that goes on for years.

The British public is evenly divided as well. Many believe that the UK should free itself from the EU and forge a new role for itself in the wider world, whilst others want closer ties to Europe.

This question cuts at the heart of British identity since we lost the Empire. Should be push closer to the USA or should we push closer to Europe?

We've tried to be both over the years, and it never really worked. Now it'll be decided one way or another.

If there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

If UK Brexit, how is it that US and UK be any "closer"?

We're like the tightest, best buds allies for quite some time now... that I don't foresee changing with or not UK stays in the EU.