|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody said he was a perfect candidate, and I agree with some of his points on how certain things structured to lean toward the liberal side.
We have a census every 10 years, to restructure the layout of the Congress. I live in a state that has gained a Representative over the years as populations have shifted. Personally, I think we might need a few more seats in the Congress but people way before me decided it had gotten big enough.
|
|
|
|
|
We never claimed it was democratic. The US is a Republic.
In the US, by the constitution, we don't vote for president by popular vote. We vote by states. How the state votes is up to the people as defined by each state constitution. Each state is given 2 votes plus a number of votes proportional to its population. Most states have a winner takes all rule - which causes the greatest disparity between popular and electoral count. Some states, however, split the electoral vote (In Maine, Clinton got 3, Trump got 2).
It has worked for 240 years.
Brent
|
|
|
|
|
At first glance this seems off for many of us Europeans but during the recent elections in the Us as I've gotten to learn more and more about your system I do think it actually works quite well.
Compare the EU which looks more and more like a federation and the US and you see that the US system is easier to understand. The Eu with its different bodies and how people are elected there seems like a complete mess in comparison.
The big difference I think is that you are a country with states and the EU is a union of countries. Since you are a country we tend to think that you should have a popular vote as we tend to have. You also often get to vote on specific topics on a state level and have more local elections.
The only big problem I think the Us have is that your system is a bit to rigid when it comes to potential third parties. The step up for them to get a say on a federal level is so high because your states winner take all approach. Compound that by the medias complete lack of attention to third parties and you have a system which will tend to breed Clintons.
So us Europeans should think of each state as a country and the federal government as the Union to be better able to compare and see that your system isn't so wrong after all.
|
|
|
|
|
You hit the key point of this whole election.
They are no longer 'supporters' - they are 'followers'.
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone (at least in North America) is talking about the events of last night so we're loosening up the rules for today only to allow respectful political discussion on these events.
Any abuse, anything that goes against the kid sister rule, anything even vaguely resembling hate speech, racial prejudice or anything just plain nasty will be deleted. Not moved, deleted.
Let's get this off our chest, but let's demonstrate that we can be grown up about it.
cheers
Chris Maunder
modified 10-Nov-16 9:42am.
|
|
|
|
|
But some of our QA visitors do seem rather ... um ... thick as two bricks glued together?
Just been dealing with someone who seems to believe that if the MS code sample for a class (in this case PrintDocument) shows it used from a button click event handler then that's the only place you can use it.
It's not just me that thinks that's spectacularly dim, is it?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I have to say that everytime I see see functional code in an event handler, rather than calling out to a method, I distrust the author. Bad practice begets bad practice.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
