Page 4 of 4

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 4:43 am UTC
by SecondTalon
Or a solution to problems tha also puts those uppity minorities back in their places vs a woman. Hahahahha a woman. Can you believe those liberals?

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 4:48 am UTC
by morriswalters
SecondTalon wrote:These are not good people. They just think they are because you have to dig a little to find the evil within.
Get out the tar and feathers. However I hope the Democratic party takes a closer look at the problem. They need reliable data rather than generalizations that aren't very useful. Assuming going forward that you want to get rid of Trump it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that there may be members of his coalition that an informed effort could pull away from him with the vision of making him a one term wonder. Calling someone a dick is generally good for cutting off communications and not much else.

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 5:15 am UTC
by gd1
SecondTalon wrote:Or a solution to problems tha also puts those uppity minorities back in their places vs a woman. Hahahahha a woman. Can you believe those liberals?


I didn't say I agreed with the view. I'm saying that automatically saying they are evil or have a desire to express racist sentiments is going too far. Some people may have viewed him as having the economic policies they wanted while Hillary didn't and figured they'd have to deal with Racism to get things done. I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 5:33 am UTC
by ucim
We'll just have to watch and see what happens. If Trump actually implements the racist, misogynistic, fact-challenged, and fascist policies that he ran on, then we have one problem - that of the rise of the Fourth Reich. However, if Trump dials it back and merely becomes a Republican president whose policies {we} don't agree with, we have a different problem (and not the problem of a president whose policies {we} disagree with) - that's a problem that half the country deals with every election. Rather, the problem is that
1: it is true that...
and
2: it's been shown that...
...appealing to racism, misogyny, fantasy, and fascism works to get elected. These are the seeds of the first problem, and we have to apply D-Con before we actually have that first problem, because the solution to the first problem is that the US is conquered and liberated from outside, and that, if it's even possible, would get messy. Possibly messy enough to reach the beginning of Time.

Jose

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 11:59 am UTC
by SecondTalon
gd1 wrote:
SecondTalon wrote:Or a solution to problems tha also puts those uppity minorities back in their places vs a woman. Hahahahha a woman. Can you believe those liberals?


I didn't say I agreed with the view. I'm saying that automatically saying they are evil or have a desire to express racist sentiments is going too far. Some people may have viewed him as having the economic policies they wanted while Hillary didn't and figured they'd have to deal with Racism to get things done. I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Having spent 20 years growing up with them, I'm not.

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 8:43 pm UTC
by gd1
SecondTalon wrote:
gd1 wrote:
SecondTalon wrote:Or a solution to problems tha also puts those uppity minorities back in their places vs a woman. Hahahahha a woman. Can you believe those liberals?


I didn't say I agreed with the view. I'm saying that automatically saying they are evil or have a desire to express racist sentiments is going too far. Some people may have viewed him as having the economic policies they wanted while Hillary didn't and figured they'd have to deal with Racism to get things done. I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Having spent 20 years growing up with them, I'm not.


Also having spent this amount of time growing up with one of them is why I am.

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 11:44 pm UTC
by azule
So this is where political divides come from: shitty relatives. ;)

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 8:32 am UTC
by Wee Red Bird
rmsgrey wrote:
Wee Red Bird wrote:The Brexit may not happen. No one really wants it. Sort of the Emperor's new clothes, but when someone in charge admits the guy is naked, everyone else will deny it and try to score points from them. There was a half hearted attempt to by-pass a vote in parliament, which is needed to start the exit process. But the worry is many will vote for it to spite their party leaders.

There is talk of a second indy ref, but doubt they will give three options of "yes", "no" and "yes, but only if Brexit happens, otherwise no". I'd be tempted by that third option.


A lot of people hope that Brexit won't happen, but there's no real way to avoid it - the consequences of overriding the referendum result would be worse than the consequences of Brexit, both for the individuals involved, and for the country as a whole...


The Brexit referendum result is an advisory one not a "must happen" one. It is just an opinion poll. And the difference between the Leave and Remain is quite small to use it for an irreversible change. People facing the death sentence have required a larger majority than that.
The easy way to avoid it would be a No vote in parliament and many have said it could be used to trigger a second Brexit referendum as voting direction of many of the public have changed.

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:09 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
Wee Red Bird wrote:The easy way to avoid it would be a No vote in parliament and many have said it could be used to trigger a second Brexit referendum as voting direction of many of the public have changed.
Many of the public votes weren't even cast*... A second referendum probably wouldn't have so many stay-at-homes. Never mind whether anyone would have switch either way after the failure of any literal Armaggeddon to fall or the failure for any actual plan to fund the NHS to emerge.

Although the "protest vote against Cameron" (or indeed against Gove/whoever) effect might or might not still translate into more contemporary forms of protest vote on more current leaders, if they're convinced once more that their counterfactual vote isn't going to matter.


* Yes, it was a high turnout, compared to general elections**, but compared with the next most comparable case on a like-for-like basis, the Scottish referendum, it was lacking.

** As it should be. General Elections don't generally state one single irreversible change as their focus. Many people might well consider it worthwhile letting it slide for four or five years if nobody really matches their own massed bunch of ideas on what should/should not be done, knowing that the hodge-podge of disliked elements that get through with the eventual winning party can be proven/proven wrong over that time and the actual correct solution (or another proposed alternative more to taste) might well be obvious to all next time round. Regerenda, however, do tend to offer at least one major and irreversible outcome (the alternative might 'merely' be a deferal until the other major outcome gets sought for again, or again, or again).

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:38 pm UTC
by Wee Red Bird
Soupspoon wrote:* Yes, it was a high turnout, compared to general elections**, but compared with the next most comparable case on a like-for-like basis, the Scottish referendum, it was lacking.

One (of the many things) that get of the nerves of the remainers are the leavers crowing that the majority of the country voted leave. Even ignoring that 52/48 split is "around half" the voters, that only one quarter of the UK voted leave.

Thankfully the people who protest voted have been given the kick up the backside they require and a second referendum might help the racists crawl back under their rocks and stop abusing anyone who doesn't look the right colour or have the right accent.

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:35 pm UTC
by rmsgrey
Wee Red Bird wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
Wee Red Bird wrote:The Brexit may not happen. No one really wants it. Sort of the Emperor's new clothes, but when someone in charge admits the guy is naked, everyone else will deny it and try to score points from them. There was a half hearted attempt to by-pass a vote in parliament, which is needed to start the exit process. But the worry is many will vote for it to spite their party leaders.

There is talk of a second indy ref, but doubt they will give three options of "yes", "no" and "yes, but only if Brexit happens, otherwise no". I'd be tempted by that third option.


A lot of people hope that Brexit won't happen, but there's no real way to avoid it - the consequences of overriding the referendum result would be worse than the consequences of Brexit, both for the individuals involved, and for the country as a whole...


The Brexit referendum result is an advisory one not a "must happen" one. It is just an opinion poll. And the difference between the Leave and Remain is quite small to use it for an irreversible change. People facing the death sentence have required a larger majority than that.
The easy way to avoid it would be a No vote in parliament and many have said it could be used to trigger a second Brexit referendum as voting direction of many of the public have changed.


The trouble with overriding the referendum is that it would undermine future referendums - whatever you believe should have been done about the UK's membership of Europe, the consequences of blocking Brexit extend beyond Brexit itself.

If you ask people for advice and then ignore that advice, people, quite reasonably, stop giving advice...

That's not to say that a party campaigning on a pro-Europe platform for the next general election and getting a strong showing wouldn't then have an equally strong mandate to reverse Brexit, but in the meantime, the big question isn't "Should Brexit happen?", but "What should Brexit look like?" - Theresa May seems to be interpreting a close referendum result as a clear mandate for a fairly hard Brexit (though not for giving 350 million a week to the NHS) which is more than a little beyond what the result actually supports...

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:08 am UTC
by HES
rmsgrey wrote:If you ask people for advice and then ignore that advice, people, quite reasonably, stop giving advice...

If you ask people for advice, and they give an unclear answer, you can quite reasonably stop and reconsider.

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:34 am UTC
by Pfhorrest
Moreover, asking someone "Are you sure?" isn't ignoring their advice.

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:40 am UTC
by rmsgrey
Pfhorrest wrote:Moreover, asking someone "Are you sure?" isn't ignoring their advice.


Maybe not, but it is (literally) questioning their judgement, and the suggestion that you'd keep asking the question until you got the "right" answer is a pretty deadly one...

HES wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:If you ask people for advice and then ignore that advice, people, quite reasonably, stop giving advice...

If you ask people for advice, and they give an unclear answer, you can quite reasonably stop and reconsider.


Asking for clarification is not the same thing as asking the same question in hopes of getting a different answer. As I said, the question that should be being asked at this point is "What sort of Brexit?" We've been told that "Brexit means Brexit", but not what it means outside of a tautology.

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:32 am UTC
by Soupspoon
HES wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:If you ask people for advice and then ignore that advice, people, quite reasonably, stop giving advice...

If you ask people for advice, and they give an unclear answer, you can quite reasonably stop and reconsider.

In this instance the British Public has spoken and it has said "Oh, I don't know... I want either the Lime-Baked Halibut or the Hunter's Chicken, probably definitely... Yes, one or the other... Maybe the chicken? The chicken. ... Oh, wait. Can that come with roast potatoes?"

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:28 am UTC
by Angua
HES wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:If you ask people for advice and then ignore that advice, people, quite reasonably, stop giving advice...

If you ask people for advice, and they give an unclear answer, you can quite reasonably stop and reconsider.

Also, there was a list floating around of other referenda in the EU that have been rerun in the past. It's not unheard of.

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:19 am UTC
by orthogon
Angua wrote:
HES wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:If you ask people for advice and then ignore that advice, people, quite reasonably, stop giving advice...

If you ask people for advice, and they give an unclear answer, you can quite reasonably stop and reconsider.

Also, there was a list floating around of other referenda in the EU that have been rerun in the past. It's not unheard of.

It's not unheard of for there to be a second referendum. But the problem as I see it is that most (maybe all) referendums have one outcome that's the status quo and another that mandates action. The most recent "re-run" EU referendums concerned the Lisbon Treaty, and the question was whether a particular member state should ratify the new treaty. The electorate said "no", i.e. they took the status quo option, which allowed the governments in question to go back later with a slightly different treaty.

It's much less acceptable to go back to the electorate once they've chosen the "active" option. It's like if I offer you a coffee, and you say "yes": you expect me to deliver on my offer, not to come back in five minutes and say "are you sure?". It's part of established social convention. Conversely, if you say "no", I can come back later with a different offer. "How about decaf?". You would get annoyed eventually if I kept offering you slightly different varieties of herbal tea, but I'm not directly breaching any of our mutual expectations simply by making different offers. In fact, I can even wait half an hour and offer you coffee again, because the situation might have changed - maybe your dinner has gone down a bit. In order to re-check an offer that you've already accepted, I need very strong direct evidence that your desires have changed, like perhaps you just got a phone call and need to leave in five minutes.

So whereas it would be reasonable to have a second Scottish Independence referendum ("maybe you'd like that coffee after all now?"), in the Brexit case something would have needed to change very materially.

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:01 am UTC
by xtifr
orthogon wrote:
It's much less acceptable to go back to the electorate once they've chosen the "active" option. It's like if I offer you a coffee, and you say "yes": you expect me to deliver on my offer, not to come back in five minutes and say "are you sure?".


Sure, but in the case of Brexit, it's really not clear what people wanted. (Cream? Sugar?) The racists are all busy screaming "Brexit means Brexit!" because they want the worst possible option--they're assuming that everyone who voted leave did so because they want to kick out all them furriners, and build a wall around the UK and have Mexico pay for it. But a lot of leave advocates were complaining about the supposedly non-democratic way the EU is run, and not about "darkies on the streets" and the horrors of hearing a Polish accent at your neighbourhood pub.

Joining the EFTA instead, like Iceland and Norway and Lichtenstein, would satisfy the strict definition of "leaving the EU", but would minimize the trade penalties. But, of course, it would mean freedom of movement would remain unchanged, which the UKKKIP and the rest of the racist contingent would hate. But that doesn't mean it's not a reasonable option!

Re: 1761: "Blame"

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:51 am UTC
by ucim
orthogon wrote:It's like if I offer you a coffee, and you say "yes": you expect me to deliver on my offer, not to come back in five minutes and say "are you sure?".
No, it's more like I offer you a root canal and you say "Oh, I dunno. I guess so. Okay." So I hand you a bottle of whiskey, get my drill, and ask "are you sure?". When you realize the whiskey is the anesthetic, you'd probably appreciate that I ask for confirmation.

Jose