Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 Oh, kk! Thanks for explaining I read somewhere the UK can't vote for EU laws, (what I meant by being worse off in the two years), guess that's not true then It'll just be really interesting to see esp considering the parallels between the avg brexit voter and the avg trump voter like even labor "defectors" and "Reagan democrats" are similar in ways. 2016 is turning out to be very facinating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~~ Posted June 24, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 Times are changing maybe? The lib Dem guys was railing on him for not being able to control his voters?No-one listens to Lib Dems after they broke their promise on tuition fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 No-one listens to Lib Dems after they broke their promise on tuition fees.UKIP might go the same way cause now they're not 100% sure about the NHS payments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 UKIP might go the same way cause now they're not 100% sure about the NHS payments Yeah... that money was never going to the NHS. That is simply not how the Tory party works, and given UKIP is primarily ex-Tories, it's not that parties aim either. It was true of them to say that that lump sum of money that we'd save could be spent on the EU, but it ignores a few things: a) We got a large portion of the money we paid back as a rebate which was which I believe was given to us for specific uses within the UK. Namely infrastructure and travel in regions that otherwise couldn't afford or maintain it. Like everywhere in Wales north of Cardiff. Most of that money will have to go to maintaining those things, or letting them rot. It's not 'Free money'. b) The government has actively been sabotaging the NHS, not trying to save it, by slashing it's funding. What money was added usually added needless bureaucracy into it. All in an effort to make it look like a failure so they can justify privatising it and turning it into the US system essentially. Which is moronic because the NHS is one of the few things we as a nation should be proud of, it's an almost unrivalled institution and I believe is the second largest single employer in the world. I am certain it was the largest employer in Europe. And yet the Tories are trying to say 'funk that' and sell it off too benefit themselves and close friends who'd purchase it. Essentially, in this case I can happily say - If you actually bought into the idea that the Leave campaign was going to use that EU money solely on the NHS then you were an idiot for not looking into it further. It won't effect UKIP votership that much. The Tories did the same funking thing but they gained votes since the last election - Farage still essentially caused us to leave because he helped advocate for the issue for years (Unless Boris Johnson who was notably pro EU till Brexit), that will have earn him points no doubts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 Well yes, in some form or the other some of that money would return to the UK. But I guess I was just hoping to see them start to attempt to keep their promises to some degree. Which mind you hasn't been ruled out yet. Will it earn him points though? It depends how and who uses the economic upsides from Brexit, and if they atleast put up the face of trying to keep to their word. Otherwise they publically become lying politicians. That's like Trump increasing immigration a quotas after he gets elected. People can't be that blind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihop Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 Farage is probably going to fade into irrelevance now - there's less of a reason to vote for his party now since its main aim was accomplished, not to mention it's been so badly run and riddled by infighting over the past years that it was losing support anyway. He's the one that instigated all this but now it's the time of even greater fools like Johnson and Gove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 Farage is probably going to fade into irrelevance now - there's less of a reason to vote for his party now since its main aim was accomplished, not to mention it's been so badly run and riddled by infighting over the past years that it was losing support anyway. He's the one that instigated all this but now it's the time of even greater fools like Johnson and Gove. Was it losing support nationally? In the Welsh elections UKIP was the only relevant party to gain seats. Even labour lost a couple of seats to UKIP. Well yes, in some form or the other some of that money would return to the UK. But I guess I was just hoping to see them start to attempt to keep their promises to some degree. Which mind you hasn't been ruled out yet. Will it earn him points though? It depends how and who uses the economic upsides from Brexit, and if they atleast put up the face of trying to keep to their word. Otherwise they publically become lying politicians. That's like Trump increasing immigration a quotas after he gets elected. People can't be that blind I mean we witnessed an area of Britain that gained among the most benefit from being in the EU voting in favour of leaving it. People who had no idea that the EU paid for that sort of thing, people who voted leave just to spite the government. We have people who once again voted to leave solely because of migrants (That remains one of the only reasons I think is outright idiotic to have voted Leave for.). People who voted the Tories in on promises of making the NHS stronger by staying. People really can be that f***ing stupid about politics, because a lot of people just don't bother to look into the issues or look at anything beyond single viewpoint media sources that spout half truths at them. People won't pay attention to anything until the actual election, buy into promises or rhetoric instead of anything concrete and vote without ever being thorough about it. Like look at Clinton in the US if you want an example of people being willingly blind just so they can say there candidate or there side won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cr47t Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 Was it losing support nationally? In the Welsh elections UKIP was the only relevant party to gain seats. Even labour lost a couple of seats to UKIP. I mean we witnessed an area of Britain that gained among the most benefit from being in the EU voting in favour of leaving it. People who had no idea that the EU paid for that sort of thing, people who voted leave just to spite the government. We have people who once again voted to leave solely because of migrants (That remains one of the only reasons I think is outright idiotic to have voted Leave for.). People who voted the Tories in on promises of making the NHS stronger by staying. People really can be that f***ing stupid about politics, because a lot of people just don't bother to look into the issues or look at anything beyond single viewpoint media sources that spout half truths at them. People won't pay attention to anything until the actual election, buy into promises or rhetoric instead of anything concrete and vote without ever being thorough about it. Like look at Clinton in the US if you want an example of people being willingly blind just so they can say there candidate or there side won. Really? I was thinking that Trump was the better example than Clinton. Anyways... well, hot damn. I went to bed last night thinking they would vote to remain and when I heard the news I was like oh s*** really? Welp, let's see where this goes. 2 more years estimated of membership though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~~ Posted June 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 Really? I was thinking that Trump was the better example than Clinton. Anyways... well, hot damn. I went to bed last night thinking they would vote to remain and when I heard the news I was like oh s*** really? Welp, let's see where this goes. 2 more years estimated of membership though.The Trump voters are actually stupid, not willingly stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 For the record, assuming that means 350->NHS isn't a logical conclusion. Hopefully some massive contributions do go to the NHS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 The Trump voters are actually stupid, not willingly stupid.Can you...maybe explain how? I'm staggered by this leftist instinct for anyone against them to become idiots and bigots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 Can you...maybe explain how? I'm staggered by this leftist instinct for anyone against them to become idiots and bigotsOkay well I don't want to really get into this but this is a pretty good example of being an idiot."One person says I'm an idiot""He happens to (I think) be a leftist""All the leftists instinctively think the other side are all bigoted idiots" Not only is it hypocritical ("We're not all idiots and bigots, why do you ALL think that") but it's just plain derailing to add something so pointless. Makes it seem less you're wondering what his opinion is and more trying to start an argument. Also you double-posted just to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 Okay well I don't want to really get into this but this is a pretty good example of being an idiot."One person says I'm an idiot""He happens to (I think) be a leftist""All the leftists instinctively think the other side are all bigoted idiots" Not only is it hypocritical ("We're not all idiots and bigots, why do you ALL think that") but it's just plain derailing to add something so pointless. Makes it seem less you're wondering what his opinion is and more trying to start an argument. Also you double-posted just to do this.Yeh, apologies for the double post. I edited the one above and and somehow thought that would lead to this one being merged. I'm honestly not the one that started attacking an us politician on this thread, the vast majority of the outburst to the Brexit vote from the left has been an attempt to subvert democracy (a second vote cause you didn't get what you wanted) or painting everyone who voted leave as angry older whites. Why do I say the left tends to paint everyone against them a "bigot"...oh I don't know...cause all the active ones DO do that? It's not one person is the point, I just was curious exactly what makes all Trump supporters idiots (which is how he phrased the argument) That aside, my point to make here was the connection/similarity between the Labor Defectors and the Blue-Collar Dems voting republican in areas like Penn and Ohio. AND the populist revolt against Globalism in the recent years. Austria succeeded in a manner (in that nether major party won). India and the UK actually followed through with Brexit and Modi's election. And soon the US and France may follow suit with Trump and Le Pen Before you rip me for asking why all Trump supporters are stupid and getting tired of the constant backlash for disagreement from predominantly leftists, how about standing up for the decent left and condoning the poorly backed mudslinging? Your argument for "Why do I generalize" is "They totally do that"."Perhaps the people generally active against them ARE bigots." Can't you see how ridiculous that argument is? That's really all I believe I have to say on the matter.So the issue here is I said "leftists", and not "many" or "certain leftist" Ok, that I can apologize for. And if speedroids comment was solely based on right wing people generalizing about left wings people, I guess I atleast have to walk away here with my head down. Of course it wasn't...but that doesn't matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 Your argument for "Why do I generalize" is "They totally do that"."Perhaps the people generally active against them ARE bigots." Can't you see how ridiculous that argument is? That's really all I believe I have to say on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 It's wrong to say all Trump supporters are idiots, just as it was wrong here to say all Leave voters were idiots. But a candidate like Trump generally pulls a higher percentage of lower educated people, a lower percentage of higher educated people, and has people voting for debatable more flimsy reasons. You've got people whose believe immigration is the biggest problem facing them right now, who assign blame to them for things far beyond there control, and take no effort to look at the bigger issues effecting there choice, or really take any effort to look beyond the rhetoric. You have people who will vote for him just to say 'funk you' to the establishment, and will have egg on there face in the event he does win. You have people overlooking the powers of the presidential office and assuming Trump can do everything. You have people completely ignoring Trumps history outside of the context of the election and just going by his statement Now before you say it - Yes this is not a problem exclusive to Trump (Except for the first part about immigration, it is of minor economic and social consequences compared to the bigger issues approaching us), it is a problem Sanders supporters had, and it is definitely a problem Hilary supporters have. But like all problems of this scale, very little is done or talked about in addressing the root causes of these problems. Trump is a manifestation of the growing resentment of the lower classes of society towards the establishment in the wake of 2008. And it's a global issue, hence why you see it happening everywhere. And the problem with anger is it makes people act without thinking. It might be against Globalism, but it's directed at entirely the wrong people so it won't actually address the issues people want it to, it's being scapegoated against Migrants, and getting them to give more power to the 1% of there country to stop said issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 It's wrong to say all Trump supporters are idiots, just as it was wrong here to say all Leave voters were idiots. But a candidate like Trump generally pulls a higher percentage of lower educated people, a lower percentage of higher educated people, and has people voting for debatable more flimsy reasons. You've got people whose believe immigration is the biggest problem facing them right now, who assign blame to them for things far beyond there control, and take no effort to look at the bigger issues effecting there choice, or really take any effort to look beyond the rhetoric. You have people who will vote for him just to say 'funk you' to the establishment, and will have egg on there face in the event he does win. You have people overlooking the powers of the presidential office and assuming Trump can do everything. You have people completely ignoring Trumps history outside of the context of the election and just going by his statement Now before you say it - Yes this is not a problem exclusive to Trump (Except for the first part about immigration, it is of minor economic and social consequences compared to the bigger issues approaching us), it is a problem Sanders supporters had, and it is definitely a problem Hilary supporters have. But like all problems of this scale, very little is done or talked about in addressing the root causes of these problems. Trump is a manifestation of the growing resentment of the lower classes of society towards the establishment in the wake of 2008. And it's a global issue, hence why you see it happening everywhere. And the problem with anger is it makes people act without thinking. It might be against Globalism, but it's directed at entirely the wrong people so it won't actually address the issues people want it to, it's being scapegoated against Migrants, and getting them to give more power to the 1% of there country to stop said issue. Are we sure that going to college suddenly makes you more educated or worldly wise? I'm not entirely sure how say a college graduate with an art or Victorian Lit. degree has a better sense of the world than a person who's been working in the jobs market for 20 years Immigration is not the biggest problem...most of us realize that Tom. The problem is that we cannot even say immigration is A problem without someone saying we're racist for doing so. People assume that Trump can do more than what a normal president can, because he's willing to aggressively take the fight to congress. He will publicly shame congress day in an out in ways that Obama would never do if they are non-cooperative. That would enlighten the people voting for the slackers and actually hit them where it hurts. People are voting for Trump because he's for us, unlike for Washington. Yes it is a risk, but it's one that needs taking in some form, because another 8 years of the last would be terrible for America and the world. I'll bite here, what bigger issues are there? Immigration is a very potent issue (but granted not the biggest) we have more and more illegals streaming in (US) and giving them the ability to vote as amnesty wants to do will just make electing politicians with no regard to the law in the future (more likely to dole out amnesty) that much easier. If we don't stop it now, we might never be able to. That's not xenophobic, that's just realizing math exits and realizing the cliff is just around the corner That last paragraph is what bothers me Tom, you can see the economic and social benefits behind a lot of Trump's policies. Acting in anger doesn't necessarily make it one of poor rational. I'm glad you started off by denouncing the generalization, but I'm afraid far more people feel just yelling bigot, racist and idiot is the proper response instead of actual discussion That is my concern, and why I'm voting Trump. Because too long has my voice be silence simply for being dissent As for brexit, I really don't think this second ref is democratic. If people didn't turn out, that's hardly the leave's problem. The fact that large portions of labor switched side is the people speaking..also 2.5 million when both sides got 15 million is just yuck. It's not my place to hope one way or another, but a revote seems like a huge breach on democracy in my eyes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted June 25, 2016 Report Share Posted June 25, 2016 I'm not commenting upon whether a university education makes you more worldly wise - I'm simply saying that people with university educations tend to be against candidates like Trump. That's not fresh university students, that's all those with university educations across all ages. The worldy wise comment is somewhat irrelevant there. It's not a comment on intelligence, it's simply saying people with greater formal education tend to be more against candidates like Trump. Second paragraph - Hey protest votes from the downtrodden. Nice to check that point off. Third Paragraph - Feeling a politician is for you without any actual evidence of such? Letting feelings drive things instead of logic? Yep, check those as well. Things very much in similarity to Brexit and UKIP voters. Last paragraph - Protest vote due to anger of being unrepresented.Add in the whole 'Make America Great again' and you see a pattern. I'm doing this to highlight - Trump is literally just an extension of this feeling of resentment you've seen in Europe. Except with one difference, no prior political history of any kind. You can't actually tell how he is aligned beyond what he says, except a history of voting Dem. People entirely ignores the idea that he's a major member of the 1% himself, and not actually in tune with the struggles of most of the US. I don't believe he has a history of activism or charity work to suggest he actually is. So I do find the idea that Trump is actually for the American people. I think he's tapping into the feeling very well, but I don't think he actually cares and I don't think he'll act on any of his promises in that regards. Because he's not accountable in the end to anyone - He's self financed and not a party member. He can attempt to do anything he wishes, which probably isn't in line with the people. The bigger issues in my eyes for the US are corporatism, Money in politics, wealth inequality, worker rights (And associated unemployment) and Environmental change. The latter because it affects literally everyone on the planet, and the other ones are similar. And they are problems with the 1% not with immigrants. I don't regard immigrants as an issue because the money they 'drain' from the economy is tiny compared to the money lost from the actions of the 1%. Like, the funk should we devote all our time to deal with the millions (At most, I doubt it's actually billions) illegal immigrants drain per year instead of the Billions the 1% avoid or damage. It's silly. And that's ignoring other things like an aging population, the approaching antibiotic cataclysm, the education system being sheet, the lack of social mobility, the wall of drugs being a thing. Those are all things I rate as bigger issues than immigration, because I don't think migrant numbers in reality are anywhere near what most think they are, and there impact is massively overblown. And yeah people do just yell bigot and the like - But those are just a vocal minority being idiots. Like the overtly racist Trump voters. It shouldn't be taken as anything more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 26, 2016 Report Share Posted June 26, 2016 I'm not commenting upon whether a university education makes you more worldly wise - I'm simply saying that people with university educations tend to be against candidates like Trump. That's not fresh university students, that's all those with university educations across all ages. The worldy wise comment is somewhat irrelevant there. It's not a comment on intelligence, it's simply saying people with greater formal education tend to be more against candidates like Trump. Second paragraph - Hey protest votes from the downtrodden. Nice to check that point off. Third Paragraph - Feeling a politician is for you without any actual evidence of such? Letting feelings drive things instead of logic? Yep, check those as well. Things very much in similarity to Brexit and UKIP voters. Last paragraph - Protest vote due to anger of being unrepresented.Add in the whole 'Make America Great again' and you see a pattern. I'm doing this to highlight - Trump is literally just an extension of this feeling of resentment you've seen in Europe. Except with one difference, no prior political history of any kind. You can't actually tell how he is aligned beyond what he says, except a history of voting Dem. People entirely ignores the idea that he's a major member of the 1% himself, and not actually in tune with the struggles of most of the US. I don't believe he has a history of activism or charity work to suggest he actually is. So I do find the idea that Trump is actually for the American people. I think he's tapping into the feeling very well, but I don't think he actually cares and I don't think he'll act on any of his promises in that regards. Because he's not accountable in the end to anyone - He's self financed and not a party member. He can attempt to do anything he wishes, which probably isn't in line with the people. The bigger issues in my eyes for the US are corporatism, Money in politics, wealth inequality, worker rights (And associated unemployment) and Environmental change. The latter because it affects literally everyone on the planet, and the other ones are similar. And they are problems with the 1% not with immigrants. I don't regard immigrants as an issue because the money they 'drain' from the economy is tiny compared to the money lost from the actions of the 1%. Like, the funk should we devote all our time to deal with the millions (At most, I doubt it's actually billions) illegal immigrants drain per year instead of the Billions the 1% avoid or damage. It's silly. And that's ignoring other things like an aging population, the approaching antibiotic cataclysm, the education system being sheet, the lack of social mobility, the wall of drugs being a thing. Those are all things I rate as bigger issues than immigration, because I don't think migrant numbers in reality are anywhere near what most think they are, and there impact is massively overblown. And yeah people do just yell bigot and the like - But those are just a vocal minority being idiots. Like the overtly racist Trump voters. It shouldn't be taken as anything more. Well, I might not entirely agree with you on all of that, but your post was an exceedingly decent one. And that much I can appreciate. Starting from the bottom. I was wrong to generalize, cause clearly there are liberals that have a wider range of argument than just those type of ad-hom attacks. But I'm not sure at this point if they're really the minority or if people like you are in the minority Those are problems. For the aging problem, I assume you mean social security. That problem is basically solved. Our generation won't get anything. My parent's generation might scrape through. The boomers will be fine. It was always going to be that way. As for bacterial resistance, education is a big thing. People need to realize that stopping meds when you feel better is what's causing this mess, but I thought there was also research into using engineered Viruses to deal with Bacteria? Removing Common Core will do a lot to fix the education system. There have been movements to push more women in to STEM fields and such. But I agree that America is slipping and that's a major problem. I'd personally say the massive political bias of the current system is toxifying the newer generation...but that's likely not what you mean. War on Drugs is linked to illegal immigration in part isn't it? They both need to go. Why exactly wouldn't Trump address campaign finance. The fact that he's self-funding (and matching small dollar donations) speaks volumes. He managed to raise 11 million dollars in 2 days off that type of donation. Money in politics is in his mind, especially after the koch brothers and other big donors spurned him. It's not getting reported as much, but he's aware. A win for Trump is a win against corp. donations. Global Warming - agreed...it's honestly too late now though. The polar caps are beyond saving iirc. Unless we find a very spontaneous rxn to consume CO2, the caps are gone. Like we all stopped production of co2 now, it's still too late. Being a member of the 1% gives him a first hand view into how they work and exactly how to crack their policies. He's voted democrats, and that's been said a lot, but by and large we're fine with that. We don't want a politician. Hillary might as well be a lizard in human skin because she's not even capable of understanding us. Maybe Trump is playing us like a fiddle, but atleast he understand the existence of our plight. Hillary is happy to step on us to get her votes from the neo-liberal coalition. She is for sure ignorant, and likely doesn't care based on how she's getting her donations. Just because I'm emotional and frustrated at being betrayed by both major parties does not mean I cannot see that they're laughing as they take a sheet on me. I see the issues, maybe they do too, but I know for a fact they won't do anything while Trump might. It's not just conservatives either. I'm sure someone will attempt to pain this as xenophobia. Penn voters weren't conservative. My parents have NEVER voted for a republican before. We've not been betrayed by republicans or democrats, we've been betrayed by both. Both too self interested to see our problems. The silent majority is finally done being ignored. That being said, I don't think I've ever said Trump is perfect nor have I been quite in criticism when he messes up. But a chance for change is better than an assurance of stagnation Change is coming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 26, 2016 Report Share Posted June 26, 2016 oh boy, more shake ups http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36632539 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted June 26, 2016 Report Share Posted June 26, 2016 Just a comment on the second referendum issue: Whilst some of it is young people who voted Remain being pissed because in there eyes there future has been compromised, there's a basis for it without being undemocratic: It's an existing EU clause that justifies it due to the lack of a clear majority in a vote with poor turnout. There is an argument of a lack of democracy in multiple ways Because the reality is, this is a majority of about 1 million people, where only 17 million voted to leave out of 48~ million who could be eligible to vote (62 million total population, but about a quarter are either senile, not full citizens or children). So essentially a majority of 37% have decided we leave the EU. Contrast this to say 60% of votes on 75% turnout where it would be 22 millionish people instead, so a majority of almost 50% instead of the total electorate. Far more representative of the will of the people. Additionally there is an argument that 16 and 17 year olds should be allowed to vote on this because it is going to have a massive impact on there future and they were already allowed to vote in the Scottish referendum on Independence, so precedent exists for that. Additionally we have a couple of other things to consider - Groups of people coming out whom voted Leave without actually supporting the camp. Comments by Nigel Farage talking about how a 52-48 result would render this unfinished buisness: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681Funny that he is not campaigning for the same when his side won. Thirdly the fact that people are simply now more educated on what the EU actually did for them, because most tablods ran stories talking about what leaving the EU meant for you after we left. Generally there are significant portions of Tabloids readers don't look into the issues much themselves, so this is relevent. And there's people who realised the result means we get an unelected PM. And the people who realised some of the blatant lies of the Leave campaign like the NHS funds. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-disenfranchised-expats-denied-eu-referendum-missing-postal-votes-demand-re-run-hundreds-a7103066.htmlFinally arguments that the postal votes of many british expats (Of which I think there are like 22 million across Europe) weren't recieved in time to count, so there opinions have essentially been ingored. Again undermining how 'democratic' this process has been. So whilst sure, some of it is because there are remainers who are poor losers, there is a lot of arguments that the referendum result wasn't actually especially democratic and that a second referendum can be justified in theory. Personally I would like to see a second referendum because of all the above makes a convincing anti democratic argument, that I think outweighs the anti-democracy of having a second result, but in the event it doesn't happen I will still accept the result we have obtained. EDIT: I think I should highlight something else - A referendum is not binding. It is essentially just a gigantic opinion poll. Parliament is not bond to following the referendum by any means, it has no binding powers or such. Having a second one isn't undemocratic at all given circumstances have changed and thus the will of the british people may have changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 26, 2016 Report Share Posted June 26, 2016 Monday Morning Quarterback and Ignorance isn't something to applaud. If people bored without thinking their vote would matter that's shows a gross negligence on their part. Nigel aside, the people behind this idea first said there would no second referendum. Life isn't a 2/3 or a 1/2 Choice There's always poor turn out Tom, hell the BBC people were praising this turn-out as is. The EU clause has notoriously been infamous for pulling states back in I'm not sure why people think 3 million is significant. More than 5 times that ammount voted for Remain already... Speaking of 3 million did you hear about the massive fraudulent votes? It just seems like a massive 2/3 push right now and I'm not entirely sure that's fair When was the ex-pat thing decided to have come in too late?US elections honestly get so much worse turn out, but we never get re-do's the fact that the UE has strong armed people into staying in the past is what worries me greatly 16-17 year olds...you do realize your prefrontal cortex isn't developed since till 24 right? Younger people are more likely to make emotional decisions rather than logical ones. A very thing you faulted me for. The fact they voted before was the mistake Speaking of which, is NI's goose cocked if Ireland leaves too? Cause there's been talk of it post Brexit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted June 26, 2016 Report Share Posted June 26, 2016 3 million is relevant because it's the largest number of signatures ever seen on a petition to the British government, on anything. It's 5% of the British population. Even if half of the people who signed it aren't Britsh (Indiciations are that it's nowhere near this. Like of the last 400,000 signatures, 350,000 were british it has been found I believe), it's still the largest petition the government have ever received. At the very least, if 5% of the population want the idea, it is worth a debate in front of the House of Commons. Because if that level of public support isn't, the funk is the point of having the ability to petition to the government? Expats are saying that despite having registered in time for the referendum, they never recieved ballots in which to vote in the first place. Cases of which have been documented in Normandy, Peru, Hong Kong, Iceland and New Zealand, which implies it's systemic not accidental. And Winter if the argument is democracy - I.E. representing the will of the people - If the will of the people has changed drastically in the days following the vote, surely it is anti-democratic to not regauge the will of the people given how close the initial result was? You'd be using democracy to push forwards something that wasn't what the people actually want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted June 26, 2016 Report Share Posted June 26, 2016 3 million is relevant because it's the largest number of signatures ever seen on a petition to the British government, on anything. It's 5% of the British population. Even if half of the people who signed it aren't Britsh (Indiciations are that it's nowhere near this. Like of the last 400,000 signatures, 350,000 were british it has been found I believe), it's still the largest petition the government have ever received. At the very least, if 5% of the population want the idea, it is worth a debate in front of the House of Commons. Because if that level of public support isn't, the funk is the point of having the ability to petition to the government? Expats are saying that despite having registered in time for the referendum, they never recieved ballots in which to vote in the first place. Cases of which have been documented in Normandy, Peru, Hong Kong, Iceland and New Zealand, which implies it's systemic not accidental. And Winter if the argument is democracy - I.E. representing the will of the people - If the will of the people has changed drastically in the days following the vote, surely it is anti-democratic to not regauge the will of the people given how close the initial result was? You'd be using democracy to push forwards something that wasn't what the people actually wantWell we know that the brexit vote is very charged on both sides. This could literally just be the most outspoken of the Remain folks just re-affirming their unhappiness. It might be a large portion of England, but it's not like anyone expected the remain people to suddenly accept a vote and roll over did we? This isn't even a majority of the remain camp, and didn't most people in the UK feel that the current referendum should be respected? What's the blood point of having a massive referendum if you're just going to second guess it ever time a tiny majority of the losing population is upset? Is it best 2/3? or 3/5? Or does Remain just need 1/2 to win? 5% of the population? Didn't 16 million already make it clear that they wanted to stay? Why does a paltry 3 million w/ however many fraud votes make any difference. The remain people already made their voice clear and they lost. Walk away with some grace. Nigel made some half-ass remarks about it not being over in a 52-48? Guess what? Brexit people cut him out of negotiations didn't they? He clearly doesn't represent them Expats don't live in the UK, it hardly make sense for people who have left the UK to decide the UK's future. If anything any expat votes that got in should be pruned out I mean you could do weekly polling till 50 ends, and still continue to do them after the UK leaves too. Hell why not put a chip in people's mind to record every change on an instantaneous basis. That way we could truly get a grasp of democracy. People voted, ignorance is not an excuse. If 16-17 was such a big problem the remain camp should have made /more/ of a fuss about it BEFORE. Can you honestly tell me you would have supported a leave re-vote if the situation was turned around? You can lie about it here and I can't do anything about that. But honestly ask yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted June 26, 2016 Report Share Posted June 26, 2016 You are kinda overlooking again - 5% of the people petitioned on this. More than anything else in history. If that level of people doesn't earn a parliamentary debate on the issue, that's stupid. Because Winter - The petition is simple an idea for something the public feels Parliament should discuss. Even if they refuse the proposal, it should get a full parliamentary debate because of the level of support it has received. The petitions don't automatically go -People sign - Law is passed or vetoed. The petition raise issues for parliamentary debate, and 5% of the people are motivated enough to ask parliament to debate the idea further. Supported it? No, no I probably wouldn't. But assuming the same margin in the results, the same idea of expats being denied votes I wouldn't oppose it either. Call them bad losers, discount there opinions, give the shout out no value. I would want a discussion on it, and more importantly I would want to ensure that there was transparency on this, no calls of ballots going missing ect ect But they aren't directly comparable situations - There's never really any pressure on Leave to push for a second referendum in the same timeframe that leave has. It can happen any time, in 6 months, in a year, in 2. They can cite some big event in the EU like another migrant crisis, or another state declaring it needs a bailout as justification for public opinion changing enough to warrant it. Remain doesn't have the same luxury in that sense - Because once the government initiates article 50, that's it basically. We can't reverse our decision easily, we can't adjust it, we are left with that choice. It's why when there is this evidence of a lack of transparency about the process, when there is an argument to be made that public opinion has changed drastically, when there is an argument that the populace is overall less ignorant, I feel that a second referendum is the better choice than pushing forwards. Because if the result is the same, it eliminates any doubt, because a majority verdict was reached multiple times in-spite of the arguments against it. If the result is different it means we don't make a massively impacting choice that the people in reality don't want. Especially since once again - A referendum is not in anyway binding. It's just an elaborate opinion poll, and there is already talk of things that are being thought of by the government to kill the move. (I.E. The Scottish parliament Veto'ing the choice, because they don't lose anything by doing so and have a tonne to gain. other groups of MP's, the majority of whom were pro remain banding together to do similar things). At the absolute minimum, this idea deserves a debate before the House of Commons. Denial of that would serve as a denial of democracy in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~~ Posted June 26, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2016 How do you lock topic polls? Also, do people think it would be a good idea for me to lock the topic poll, now that the referendum is over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.