|
Exactly. Just the same as all the Bremainers demanding a second referendum.
|
|
|
|
|
I think part of why the Brexit side won is because of same processes. People who feel like decisions are taken from them, that their opinions doesn't matter. That their aren't allowed to be critical to immigration or the EU because they are privileged and white etc and constantly told that they are racist or xenophobe or uneducated etc. If these people had felt that their opinion was being taking in to consideration most likely enough people would have been swayed for the UK to remain and I believe the same thing is happening in a lot of EU countries. Just because you are white, male and less educated does it make your opinion less valued to those people? If you don't want them to lash out you can't be derogatory and instead make sure that they can trust that you are also working for a better future for them, not just everyone else. But that's one of the difficulties with politics find what appeals to people and express it correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a little bit more complicated than that.
Nobody in the UK really knew what they were being asked to vote for in June (it's November now and we're still none the wiser).
Requests for a second referendum are largely built upon the notion that if we're going to employ democracy we should do it properly rather than asking a vague question then treating the answer to that as a mandate for an un-elected PM to do whatever she fancies.
In the US, the question asked was a simple and unambiguous one of who should be president. The public voted and are going to get what they asked for. It's entirely different in that respect.
If PeejayAdams ever spoke about himself in the third person, I would not vote for PeejayAdams.
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: Nobody in the UK really knew what they were being asked to vote for in June
I did.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you could tell our glorious leaders - they don't seem to have the remotest idea.
If PeejayAdams ever spoke about himself in the third person, I would not vote for PeejayAdams.
|
|
|
|
|
Considering we are the first country to do this in the last 60+ years, I think they are correct to take it slowly.
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't agree more. What bothers me is the apparent determination to get to an unknown and unagreed destination in the quickest time possible.
Slogans aren't solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see that as the current situation at all. Theresa May has stated that Article 50 will be invoked by March 2017, nearly a year after the referendum; hardly rushing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Any action without a plan, whether implemented in a day or a century, is rushed by definition.
Or, to use the old cliche, failing to plan is planning to fail.
Politicos could learn an awful lot from bodged up IT projects - you know the ones that cause years and years of pain and leave technical debt the size of Texas just because someone rushed into the early stages without stopping to think for a few minutes.
Slogans aren't solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: Any action without a plan
And you know for certain that they don't have a plan?
|
|
|
|
|
It's very hard to tell when you're not told anything more insightful than the oft-repeated and ultra-inane "Brexit means Brexit" (the PM really needs some better script-writers, I'm sure that's one thing that everyone in the nation agree on!)
Do you believe that there's a coherent plan encompassing the economic implications; the potential departure of the financial services industry; the future of Gibraltar; the potential break-up of the UK; the land border with the EU; the moving of de facto borders from France to England; the future of research in the UK; the funding of our agriculture and a plethora of other questions?
Personally, I just can't imagine that there is. Even given a far more capable crew than that which are supposedly steering the ship at the minute, it would be a very, very tall order indeed, to come up with such a plan.
Yes, there are some arguments for playing cards close to the chest and so forth but I'm really not feeling that there's anything going on beyond smokescreens and empty rhetoric right now as they desperately try to figure out the cunning plan that should have been there from the start. I wonder how long it will be before David Davies tells us that the dog ate his homework.
Equally, I don't feel that we had that much of a plan for life within the EU either had the vote gone the other way. Ultimately, we're led by a pretty sorry shower and I can't help but be terrified that such a confederacy of dunces have been entrusted to enact something that has the potential to be a massively breaking change.
Slogans aren't solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome to the Free World.
|
|
|
|
|
Part of the problem is what is defined as 'discrimination', 'sexism', 'racism'. If you are a white male, then the perception is, you're part of the problem, therefore you must experience reverse discrimination, you must be made to pay for the actions that neither you nor your family had anything to do with. But, hey.. that's fair...
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Carmichael wrote: But, hey.. that's fair...
Under art. 3,982,647 of the anti-discrimination policy compiled by a triumvirate of sound-minded people and ratified by three more, the word "fair" has been excluded from public use, in favour of the term "non-black".
If you do not wish sanctions to be applied, you must amend your message and your behaviour accordingly.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
There are a lot of whites who doesn't experience being privileged and then constantly hearing that you are at fault or uneducated etc just because you are white and that your opinion doesn't matter or be grateful for what you have will sooner or later result in something.
Van Jones used the term whitelash but I wonder how many of them are truly against others just because of their ethnicity? Most likely a majority are good people who just wants to be heard and feel that their opinion matters.
|
|
|
|
|
Being called an 'immigrant' in the country you and your parents were born in is discrimination.
Being told you have to pay reparations for actions taken 20 years before you were born, actions neither you nor your parents were involved in... what is that called?
Being told the work force 'must be representative of the cultural make up of the community' and you can't have the job because you ethnic base is 'over represented'... what is that called?
|
|
|
|
|
Discrimination is often in the imagination. Paranoia has always been a major propaganda tool for extremists of all varieties and the sad truth is that fear is a more powerful motivator than hope.
As a white, working-class, non-university educated male, I'm constantly being assured by the right-wing media that I'm being discriminated against for not being a one-armed, black lesbian. The only problem is that no-one can actually give me a concrete example of where or how this occurs.
The whole Putin/Trump/Le Penn/Farage approach is to convince people that they are victims, get them annoyed about it and harvest that anger. It's not an invention of the leaders of the new right, it's a trick that they learned from a certain populist predecessor.
If PeejayAdams ever spoke about himself in the third person, I would not vote for PeejayAdams.
|
|
|
|
|
It's more than that - it goes to down to the evolutionary level for survival of your genes vs. those of anyone elses.
This expands Self > family unit > extended family > . . . > city > nation.
WE vs NOT WE
So, give people someone to blame for their problems - someone from the a Not-We group. It goes back as far as blaming the Jews for the Black Plague right on up to people, in today's world, not living the lives they see on TV. It has to be someone's fault - things just weren't fair.
Who, after all, doesn't like to have a scapegoat?
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Member 11683251 wrote: Basically their definition of democracy has shifted from being a system where you vote to being a set of values.
Voting alone does not make a democracy.
Lots of places where you can vote, with a single choice.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Member 11683251 wrote: Basically their definition of democracy has shifted from being a system where you vote to being a set of values
One of the more astute observations I've seen lately.
Very good.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
It works different from the republican system 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
There was talk of revolution from every side of the political spectrum.
no biggie.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
On a more technical level, it seems like the Democrats won the Popular vote, but still lost the election. 
Would you mind explaining how democratic that is?
|
|
|
|
|
We are a representative republic. The founders decided to create the Electoral College to do the actual election. Sorry that too many people live in certain states. She won those but there are only so many Electoral College votes for each state.
Same thing happened to Al Gore in 2000.
It's worked fine for 200 years. Democrats are just sore losers, highlighted by the fact that as of 10:06 AM EST, she STILL hasn't made a concession speech.
|
|
|
|
|
MarkTJohnson wrote: Democrats are just sore losers
I seem to remember a certain quote from your President Elect on that matter 
So does the country as a whole still feel the college system is representative of the Will of the People?
Seems a little odd given the changes to each State's population over the years.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
