Prince Andrew: Epstein Scandal

[Altfish]

She had a boyfriend, probably around her age but she didn't have to give any details. She's hardly the first. Doctors - some it seems - will do this from the health aspect for the girls and they seemingly are allowed to do so without being prosecuted. Kids will have sex before 16 - apparently about 25% of girls - so not much can be done apart from trying to persuade them to wait. A bit pointless attempting to prosecute them.

Hmm, if it stops unwanted pregnancies then that's good.
Persuading them to wait until they are 16 does not work.

 

[Estro Felino]

Won't be for long as soon as the UK becomes a Muslim country.

Now you understand why we Italians want to give our country to Putin...
The Russians will preserve Christianity...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well...no...
Since the two princes WIlliam and Harry have a very healthy lifestyle..

Sure. Some royals might do a good job, some might not. In all cases they are gifted their job and the perks that come with it by accident of birth so let's not pretend it's anything other than a lottery.

 

[Estro Felino]

Sure. Some royals might do a good job, some might not. In all cases they are gifted their job and the perks that come with it by accident of birth so let's not pretend it's anything other than a lottery.

I understand...nevertheless being a Republic is much worse, especially as a former monarchy as Italy is, because the new head of state sometimes steals powers from the Prime Minister.


If we still had the monarch, he would have no chance to do that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I understand...nevertheless being a Republic is much worse, especially as a former monarchy as Italy is, because the new head of state sometimes steals powers from the Prime Minister.


If we still had the monarch, he would have no chance to do that.

I disagree (hey, I'm a Republican) and think it depends entirely on how you constitute the Republic. But there are lots of Austrians who would agree with you.

Combine them with the 'true' monarchists and you have little chance of Australia becoming a republic anytime soon.

 

[LuisDantas]

I will not dare to have much of an opinion, but maybe it is a good thing that he is admitting what happened, or at least approaching that point?

 

[Altfish]

Many of his corporate 'partners' seem to be running away from him...

BT says it will not work with company linked to Prince Andrew

Two Australian universities sever ties with Prince Andrew charity after Epstein interview

 

[Stevicus]

Now you understand why we Italians want to give our country to Putin...
The Russians will preserve Christianity...

The Russians are Eastern Orthodox, which hasn't always seen eye to eye with the Church of Rome.

 

[Estro Felino]

The Russians are Eastern Orthodox, which hasn't always seen eye to eye with the Church of Rome.

1) There's not much difference with Catholicism
2) Better Orthodox than dhimmi

 

[Stevicus]

1) There's not much difference with Catholicism
2) Better Orthodox than dhimmi

Well, maybe so, although there's been a schism for nearly 1000 years.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure. Some royals might do a good job, some might not. In all cases they are gifted their job and the perks that come with it by accident of birth so let's not pretend it's anything other than a lottery.

That is not quite true, IMO.

For good or worse, royal families create and sustain a lot of expectative and planning for the future. That does not mean that Kings, Queens and Prices will be up to the roles that they are expected to play, but at least they will be given some measure of support and, very often, a lot of training. That is something. Not always for the good, but something nonetheless.

There is something to be said about the virtues of predictability in politics. There are countries with parlamentary monarchies that do not seem to be doing too badly for that. To an extent, having a stable head of state can serve to counterbalance the appeal of irresponsible demagogy in the candidates for heads of government.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, maybe so, although there's been a schism for nearly 1000 years.

I have to agree with @Estro Felino here.

A lot happened in those 1000 years, and the two bodies of adherents are, if nothing else, very much on speaking terms with each other these days.

That is no reason to gloss over the significant matter of There Is Putin, of course.

 

[Stevicus]

I have to agree with @Estro Felino here.

A lot happened in those 1000 years, and the two bodies of adherents are, if nothing else, very much on speaking terms with each other these days.

That is no reason to gloss over the significant matter of There Is Putin, of course.

Well, yes, it's true a lot has happened, and in recent times, most Christian denominations have mostly been at peace with each other. But they still have disagreements and don't always see eye to eye on things. Though, they don't appear to want to make that much of a big deal over it.

To be honest, I'm not really sure what Putin believes or whether he can "preserve Christianity." There are some Christians in the US who seem to think the same thing about Trump. I don't really see it myself, but who knows? Maybe they will save Christianity and be venerated centuries from now as "St. Vladimir" and "St. Donald."

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, yes, it's true a lot has happened, and in recent times, most Christian denominations have mostly been at peace with each other. But they still have disagreements and don't always see eye to eye on things. Though, they don't appear to want to make that much of a big deal over it.

To be honest, I'm not really sure what Putin believes or whether he can "preserve Christianity." There are some Christians in the US who seem to think the same thing about Trump. I don't really see it myself, but who knows? Maybe they will save Christianity and be venerated centuries from now as "St. Vladimir" and "St. Donald."

Everything is possible, I suppose, but I would not want to live in a world where either of those two gentlemen would be remembered as having been helpers of Christianity.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That is not quite true, IMO.

For good or worse, royal families create and sustain a lot of expectative and planning for the future. That does not mean that Kings, Queens and Prices will be up to the roles that they are expected to play, but at least they will be given some measure of support and, very often, a lot of training. That is something. Not always for the good, but something nonetheless.

There is something to be said about the virtues of predictability in politics. There are countries with parlamentary monarchies that do not seem to be doing too badly for that. To an extent, having a stable head of state can serve to counterbalance the appeal of irresponsible demagogy in the candidates for heads of government.

That sounds like you're suggesting that the training and preparation due to a clear forward plan are beneficial.

A few points from my pov.

1. Parliamentary/constituional monarchies can work fine. I humbly submit my country as an example.
2. Monarchies don't strike me as especially clear in terms of succession planning. When will Queen Elizabeth relinquish 'power' and who will replace her?
3. Monarchies aren't limited to a family preparing to rule. Instead there is a whole class of people identified as 'special' by bloodlines.
4. I wouldn't necessarily support voting directly for a head of state, so...as previously stated...I commonly hear pushback on republics which depends ENTIRELY on how the republic is constituted.
5. The Queen of Australia is English. Our flag contains the Union Jack. With all due respect to the past, we are not a colony of England, and are quite capable of managing our own affairs. I doubt my opinion would be different if the royals were Australian, but it's an extra layer of eye rolls for me.

 

[LuisDantas]

That sounds like you're suggesting that the training and preparation due to a clear forward plan are beneficial.

Correct. I am indeed.

A few points from my pov.

1. Parliamentary/constituional monarchies can work fine. I humbly submit my country as an example.
2. Monarchies don't strike me as especially clear in terms of succession planning. When will Queen Elizabeth relinquish 'power' and who will replace her?

I understand that it will more than likely be Prince Charles, unless he chooses to give way to Prince William, which I find likely.

I don't really see that as a problem. We don't know who will be the Presidents or Prime Ministers of ten years in the future either. If anything, those are bigger wildcards.

3. Monarchies aren't limited to a family preparing to rule. Instead there is a whole class of people identified as 'special' by bloodlines.
4. I wouldn't necessarily support voting directly for a head of state, so...as previously stated...I commonly hear pushback on republics which depends ENTIRELY on how the republic is constituted.
5. The Queen of Australia is English. Our flag contains the Union Jack. With all due respect to the past, we are not a colony of England, and are quite capable of managing our own affairs. I doubt my opinion would be different if the royals were Australian, but it's an extra layer of eye rolls for me.

I just don't see nationalities as very real. They're accidents of birth, and mean exactly as much as we decide to lend them in the way of significance.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Correct. I am indeed.

Makes perfect sense. I agree. Whilst we tie this to the bloodline right now, does this mean you'd see us picking a kid at random and giving them the same upbringing/training as equally effective?

I understand that it will more than likely be Prince Charles, unless he chooses to give way to Prince William, which I find likely.

The king of my country will either be an Englishman I don't respect at all or an Englishman I have some respect for. But I have no say, nor does any other Australian. I get that's not how you said it, but that's true, right?

I don't really see that as a problem. We don't know who will be the Presidents or Prime Ministers of ten years in the future either. If anything, those are bigger wildcards.

Indeed. But are you sure that 'surety of immediate outcome' is how we should judge things?

I just don't see nationalities as very real. They're accidents of birth, and mean exactly as much as we decide to lend them in the way of significance.

I get that you don't see nationality as real, and you've always been someone who's opinion I've respected, if not agreed with. But are you sure Charles would understand the impact and nuances of Australian politics more than someone who lives in Australia? Even if they were born elsewhere? It seems unlikely...

 

[LuisDantas]

Makes perfect sense. I agree. Whilst we tie this to the bloodline right now, does this mean you'd see us picking a kid at random and giving them the same upbringing/training as equally effective?

Almost, but probably not quite. Genetic tendencies may play a role, and I expect that the royals will feel that much more motivated (often but not always for the better) if they feel a personal family connection to those heirs.

But sure, upbringing and training for a life time are IMO expected to make the major difference.

The king of my country will either be an Englishman I don't respect at all or an Englishman I have some respect for. But I have no say, nor does any other Australian. I get that's not how you said it, but that's true, right?

Close enough, I must assume. Technically you have a say. It just turns out that it is not likely to be heard in the ocean of other says in Australia, which themselves are not likely to be taken as decisive when confronted with the voices in England.

But in all honesty, I don't know how much of a difference that makes. I get the sense that figures of power are just not very likely to even have the opportunity to be aware of how specific people feel about them, with very specific exceptions. The days when political leaders would know the names of their supporters are well behind us.

That of course makes the legitimacy of their power questionable, but it also makes the legitimacy of anyone else in such a position just as questionable, as well as the meaning of our willingness to lend them support. We have such high population numbers now that this impasse can't be denied anymore.

Indeed. But are you sure that 'surety of immediate outcome' is how we should judge things?

Well, no, not at all. On the other hand, having some measure of certainty on the consequences of events would certainly be helpful for most decisions. Without that, we might almost as well roll dice, or not bother to form expectations beyond preparing for the unknown.

I get that you don't see nationality as real, and you've always been someone who's opinion I've respected, if not agreed with. But are you sure Charles would understand the impact and nuances of Australian politics more than someone who lives in Australia? Even if they were born elsewhere? It seems unlikely...

Thanks, and fair enough. No, of course I am not. Then again, having the opportunity to understand local situations has not been shown as very helpful for many politicians that I know of. And any given community will have some measure of inner division and clash of perspectives anyway; it is all a matter of degree and ability to manage those clashes.

Again, I think that there is a strong tendency to neglect the true measure of the impact of our growing populations and their ever more complex needs and demands. It is not only harder to succesfully navigate the political reality of the random city or bigger community, but also more necessary to consider subtler effects of decisions, as well as coordinating better with other levels of governance.

The world is significantly more complicated than it was, say, forty years ago, and our political systems and voting criteria have, to put it charitably, not kept up to the task.

Above all, voter expectations have if anything regressed to a sorry level. I can't express my disappointment with the rise of empty populists making empty, lies-ridden promises left and right in strong enough terms. To me that amounts to people letting go of any remnants of respect towards their own power of vote.

 

[Stevicus]

That sounds like you're suggesting that the training and preparation due to a clear forward plan are beneficial.

A few points from my pov.

1. Parliamentary/constituional monarchies can work fine. I humbly submit my country as an example.
2. Monarchies don't strike me as especially clear in terms of succession planning. When will Queen Elizabeth relinquish 'power' and who will replace her?
3. Monarchies aren't limited to a family preparing to rule. Instead there is a whole class of people identified as 'special' by bloodlines.
4. I wouldn't necessarily support voting directly for a head of state, so...as previously stated...I commonly hear pushback on republics which depends ENTIRELY on how the republic is constituted.
5. The Queen of Australia is English. Our flag contains the Union Jack. With all due respect to the past, we are not a colony of England, and are quite capable of managing our own affairs. I doubt my opinion would be different if the royals were Australian, but it's an extra layer of eye rolls for me.

To be honest, I never really could understand monarchism or people's apparent devotion to it. There are even Americans who gush and fawn over the Royal Family like it's some kind of fairy tale or storybook.

Concepts like "royal blood" or "noble birth" don't appear to have any scientific or medical basis.

I'm sure your system of government works fine (maybe even better than the US government, and that's saying something), although I would suggest that it would work just as well if the Royal Family were all to disappear tomorrow. I think you'd get along just fine without them.

Monarchism is a decidedly anti-egalitarian view, even if it's practiced benignly and purely for sentimental value.

 

[Estro Felino]

To be honest, I'm not really sure what Putin believes or whether he can "preserve Christianity." There are some Christians in the US who seem to think the same thing about Trump. I don't really see it myself, but who knows? Maybe they will save Christianity and be venerated centuries from now as "St. Vladimir" and "St. Donald."

Well....Putin is ten times better than Trump...no offense.
Putin speaks his mind, detests the politically correct, openly defends the Russian Orthodox Church.


Btw...he said that many times...he wants to preserve Christianity in Europe.

Salvini aka the European Trump has said: better being with Putin than with the EU