3 ms·

The US argument against it, based on immigrants, is rather convoluted — and quite idiotic. How many poor Champagne producers do you think emigrated to the US?

The US argument against it, based on immigrants, is rather convoluted — and quite idiotic. How many poor Champagne producers do you think emigrated to the US? Not one, considering how it's always been a luxury product and it's not that ancient. Do they deserve protection? Well Coca Cola sure does, why not them?

_nub3 5y ago
"Champagne" does sound better and more exclusive compared to "sparkling wine".
- kergonath 5y ago
  This is quite subjective. One Californian (or Australian, or whatever) sparkling wine producer could set a trend with a new, memorable name, and become more exclusive.
  - himinlomax 5y ago
    This is fine Australian Champagne wine. It's a wine with a message, and the message is: beware!
Zababa 5y ago
Especially with wine: did the immigrants bring soil with them? They didn't. You can't produce Champagne in the USA, just like we can't produce Californian wine in France.

The US argument against it, based on immigrants, is rather convoluted ­— and quite idiotic. How many poor Champagne producers do you think emigrated to the US?

The US argument against it, based on immigrants, is rather convoluted ­— and quite idiotic. How many poor Champagne producers do you think emigrated to the US?

The US argument against it, based on immigrants, is rather convoluted — and quite idiotic. How many poor Champagne producers do you think emigrated to the US?

The US argument against it, based on immigrants, is rather convoluted — and quite idiotic. How many poor Champagne producers do you think emigrated to the US?