|
Post by foggyisback on Jul 11, 2016 11:02:00 GMT -5
Yes it freaking matters! A Trump presidency will be infinitely worse than a Clinton one. With Clinton as President the Police are still free to shoot and loot American citizens. ...and with Trump the ICD we could have what the Philippines is having now - a brutal dictatorship.
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Jul 11, 2016 11:03:00 GMT -5
Disagree. If you can't see the negative ramifications of leaving the EU wouldn't it be better to head them off now instead of waiting until the costs are way, way prohibitive? Because those ramifications were discussed during the campaign before the vote. That they didn't believe them is irrelevant - they voted. Let me put it this way: if the Brexit vote had gone the other way, is there any rational argument that would convince you that it should be revoted upon? What makes this one unique. Was the will of the people not represented in this vote?
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Jul 11, 2016 11:03:51 GMT -5
Yes it freaking matters! A Trump presidency will be infinitely worse than a Clinton one. With Clinton as President the Police are still free to shoot and loot American citizens. Honest to God, I'm terrified of the global implications of a Trump Presidency. I am terrified of what he'd do.
|
|
|
Post by stuartzechman on Jul 11, 2016 11:04:23 GMT -5
Does It Really Matter Who's President if the Police Can Keep Murdering American Citizens? How long until our crumbling inner cities resemble Palestine? What good is voting if the Police are still using communities like a Piggy Bank? Philandro Castile was ticketed 52 times. It's Ferguson all over again. Democrats could sweep all the seats in Congress and pass Firearm Restrictions and the Police would still be free to shoot or loot citizens. No wonder people don't vote. You really can't blame them when the conditions they live in never change. Yes it freaking matters! A Trump presidency will be infinitely worse than a Clinton one. Why would a Trump presidency be infinitely worse than a Clinton presidency? SZ
|
|
newhivemaster
Hive Listener
Hive Master
Posts: 2,660
Likes: 10,489
|
Post by newhivemaster on Jul 11, 2016 11:17:48 GMT -5
Democracy also gives you the freedom to correct. Our 18th Amendment prohibiting the sale and use of alcohol was repealed years later by the 21st Amendment. The only thing that prevents the Brits from re-voting is their own pride. You don't revote before you've had a chance to implement. You adjust once the consequences become clear and three weeks later is not an acceptable buffer. There were 13 years between the 18th and 21st amendments - time enough for two entire amendments to be passed and ratified in between. Recall elections only succeed when it is demonstrated someone was actually being criminal and a revote at this stage would need a similar degree of demonstration. It is total horseshit. You might if the proponents, cowards all, flee like rats from a sinking ship.
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Jul 11, 2016 11:39:33 GMT -5
You don't revote before you've had a chance to implement. You adjust once the consequences become clear and three weeks later is not an acceptable buffer. There were 13 years between the 18th and 21st amendments - time enough for two entire amendments to be passed and ratified in between. Recall elections only succeed when it is demonstrated someone was actually being criminal and a revote at this stage would need a similar degree of demonstration. It is total horseshit. You might if the proponents, cowards all, flee like rats from a sinking ship. That's still irrelevant. It's still about the fact that the will of the people was represented in the vote. It's confirmation bias at its worst. We're making decisions and advocating a course of action based upon what we want and looking for justifications to support it. But at the end of the day, there were over a million more votes in favor of leaving the EU than not. We can make the argument of protest vote, we can make the argument of the lack of plan, we can make the argument about the economic ramifications, but all of these are not uncommon to any other democratic vote. When Obama was elected, Wall Street went into total free fall. We know that it was a total bullshit overreaction, but it lost 50% of its value and people were blaming it on Obama being elected. Would that have been justification, right then, to hold another election? No. People knew there might be economic consequences to Obama's election and they knew there might be all sorts of issues, but an election is an election and you let the scenario play out first. Brexit won. End of story. I don't like it, but it was what happened in that society. Everything else - EVERYTHING else - is normal for the losing side to point out. Elections have consequences.
|
|
newhivemaster
Hive Listener
Hive Master
Posts: 2,660
Likes: 10,489
|
Post by newhivemaster on Jul 11, 2016 11:44:59 GMT -5
You might if the proponents, cowards all, flee like rats from a sinking ship. That's still irrelevant. It's still about the fact that the will of the people was represented in the vote. It's confirmation bias at its worst. We're making decisions and advocating a course of action based upon what we want and looking for justifications to support it. But at the end of the day, there were over a million more votes in favor of leaving the EU than not. We can make the argument of protest vote, we can make the argument of the lack of plan, we can make the argument about the economic ramifications, but all of these are not uncommon to any other democratic vote. When Obama was elected, Wall Street went into total free fall. We know that it was a total bullshit overreaction, but it lost 50% of its value and people were blaming it on Obama being elected. Would that have been justification, right then, to hold another election? No. People knew there might be economic consequences to Obama's election and they knew there might be all sorts of issues, but an election is an election and you let the scenario play out first. Brexit won. End of story. I don't like it, but it was what happened in that society. Everything else - EVERYTHING else - is normal for the losing side to point out. Elections have consequences. We'll have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Outsider on Jul 11, 2016 11:51:16 GMT -5
You might if the proponents, cowards all, flee like rats from a sinking ship. That's still irrelevant. It's still about the fact that the will of the people was represented in the vote. It's confirmation bias at its worst. We're making decisions and advocating a course of action based upon what we want and looking for justifications to support it. But at the end of the day, there were over a million more votes in favor of leaving the EU than not. We can make the argument of protest vote, we can make the argument of the lack of plan, we can make the argument about the economic ramifications, but all of these are not uncommon to any other democratic vote. When Obama was elected, Wall Street went into total free fall. We know that it was a total bullshit overreaction, but it lost 50% of its value and people were blaming it on Obama being elected. Would that have been justification, right then, to hold another election? No. People knew there might be economic consequences to Obama's election and they knew there might be all sorts of issues, but an election is an election and you let the scenario play out first. Brexit won. End of story. I don't like it, but it was what happened in that society. Everything else - EVERYTHING else - is normal for the losing side to point out. Elections have consequences. But what if the will of the people changed? It's one thing when you think your vote is a protest vote. But once the consequences became clear, maybe they changed their mind. If it's the majority - then it's still their will. I mean, otherwise is there a time limit? I dunno; i'm just reading everyone's comments.
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Jul 11, 2016 11:56:12 GMT -5
That's still irrelevant. It's still about the fact that the will of the people was represented in the vote. It's confirmation bias at its worst. We're making decisions and advocating a course of action based upon what we want and looking for justifications to support it. But at the end of the day, there were over a million more votes in favor of leaving the EU than not. We can make the argument of protest vote, we can make the argument of the lack of plan, we can make the argument about the economic ramifications, but all of these are not uncommon to any other democratic vote. When Obama was elected, Wall Street went into total free fall. We know that it was a total bullshit overreaction, but it lost 50% of its value and people were blaming it on Obama being elected. Would that have been justification, right then, to hold another election? No. People knew there might be economic consequences to Obama's election and they knew there might be all sorts of issues, but an election is an election and you let the scenario play out first. Brexit won. End of story. I don't like it, but it was what happened in that society. Everything else - EVERYTHING else - is normal for the losing side to point out. Elections have consequences. But what if the will of the people changed? It's one thing when you think your vote is a protest vote. But once the consequences became clear, maybe they changed their mind. If it's the majority - then it's still their will. I mean, otherwise is there a time limit? I dunno; i'm just reading everyone's comments. When 5% of the population voted for Ralph Nader as a protest against Al Gore, did they get to revote when they realized that it meant George W Bush won by a Supreme Court vote? This is not a new phenomenon. Elections have consequences.
|
|
|
Post by mrobvious on Jul 11, 2016 12:11:12 GMT -5
Good morning. I have some posts that show the lie that Wern was posting yesterday. Let me get them Funny how your lies don't stand up to video. Kevin believe what he believes. Truth doesn't matter. He'd rather listen to an asshat over at mental meltdown dot com than actual facts. The stupid runs deep.
|
|
|
Post by mrobvious on Jul 11, 2016 12:13:06 GMT -5
Militarized police have surrounded protesters and community members in #‎BatonRouge. Police have been violent, pushing folks off the sidewalk and pointing their guns at community members. Baton Rouge is one of many cities protesting the recent police killings of Alton Sterling & Philando Castile. #‎BlackLivesMatter video via @lizzkatherine_ www.facebook.com/RevNews/videos/690371467783085/Like in Ferguson; we saw the pictures and videos. kevin said 100 BLM were arrested. He didn't care if it just happened to be the overviolence of cops. In full body armor. Against girls in summer dresses. They were arrested for some nefarious and in their blood reason. But hey, Kevin isn't a racist. He just sound and act like one. It's not his fault blacks make him act like it.
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Jul 11, 2016 12:15:36 GMT -5
I think voting for leaders is different than voting in a referendum for a policy change. In the US the leader is elected for a term, unless he does something so egregious to be removed from office. It became clear that the leaders for the brexit policy put forth were using outright lies to sway voters to their cause. That is why the rats ran.
I guess it would depend on the rules for referendums in the Uk. They could always have a referendum on whether a second brexit vote should be taken.
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Jul 11, 2016 12:15:54 GMT -5
Actually, another good example: do Republicans get to revote just because Trump is fucking crazy?
|
|
|
Post by mrobvious on Jul 11, 2016 12:18:17 GMT -5
Yes it freaking matters! A Trump presidency will be infinitely worse than a Clinton one. Why would a Trump presidency be infinitely worse than a Clinton presidency? SZ Because a) He doesn't understand the concept of checks and balances. Or limits. Or the constitution. He'll act like a little kid wanting it NOW. b) He will appoint people who have no business in any government or judicial function. If we have a broken system now, it'll be worse after he starts to load incompetent political fanatics into the system. c) He has zero diplomatic ability. It was bad during the Bush years. But that'll pale in comparison with a world that absolutely loath Trump. And that can only lead to more international diplomatic incidents.
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Jul 11, 2016 12:18:41 GMT -5
I think voting for leaders is different than voting in a referendum for a policy change. In the US the leader is elected for a term, unless he does something so egregious to be removed from office. It became clear that the leaders for the brexit policy put forth were using outright lies to sway voters to their cause. That is why the rats ran. I guess it would depend on the rules for referendums in the Uk. They could always have a referendum on whether a second brexit vote should be taken. Each vote is several million dollars to run. Unless polls show an overwhelming support for a second Brexit vote, then there might be a discussion. Instead, polls show that the support for a second Brexit vote is closer to 40% www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-referendum-poll-vote-leave-voters-regret-four-out-of-ten-remain-europe-a7127731.htmlHardly a justification, especially when you consider that this is a smaller share of the population than who voted against the Brexit in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by mrobvious on Jul 11, 2016 12:22:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by deconstructiva on Jul 11, 2016 12:27:53 GMT -5
You might if the proponents, cowards all, flee like rats from a sinking ship. That's still irrelevant. It's still about the fact that the will of the people was represented in the vote. It's confirmation bias at its worst. We're making decisions and advocating a course of action based upon what we want and looking for justifications to support it. But at the end of the day, there were over a million more votes in favor of leaving the EU than not. We can make the argument of protest vote, we can make the argument of the lack of plan, we can make the argument about the economic ramifications, but all of these are not uncommon to any other democratic vote. When Obama was elected, Wall Street went into total free fall. We know that it was a total bullshit overreaction, but it lost 50% of its value and people were blaming it on Obama being elected. Would that have been justification, right then, to hold another election? No. People knew there might be economic consequences to Obama's election and they knew there might be all sorts of issues, but an election is an election and you let the scenario play out first. Brexit won. End of story. I don't like it, but it was what happened in that society. Everything else - EVERYTHING else - is normal for the losing side to point out. Elections have consequences. Brexit is nonbinding. Parliament has the final say. Not saying Theresa May is going to unwind or ignore the vote, but on paper, she can, just as Parliament can do something different if they wish. Yeah, May would likely have the shortest term as PM in history, but still. www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/23/eu-referendum-legally-binding-brexit-lisbon-cameron-sovereign-parliamentwww.globalresearch.ca/brexit-referendum-is-non-binding-uk-parliament-not-voter-has-final-say/5532485...also, in OUR elections in US, remember that we don't directly elect for the candidates, just state delegates, and then Congress certifies the election. There was a brief protest in Congress in 2000 over the rigged election of Bush, but Al Gore himself helped quash that....
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Jul 11, 2016 12:32:11 GMT -5
That's still irrelevant. It's still about the fact that the will of the people was represented in the vote. It's confirmation bias at its worst. We're making decisions and advocating a course of action based upon what we want and looking for justifications to support it. But at the end of the day, there were over a million more votes in favor of leaving the EU than not. We can make the argument of protest vote, we can make the argument of the lack of plan, we can make the argument about the economic ramifications, but all of these are not uncommon to any other democratic vote. When Obama was elected, Wall Street went into total free fall. We know that it was a total bullshit overreaction, but it lost 50% of its value and people were blaming it on Obama being elected. Would that have been justification, right then, to hold another election? No. People knew there might be economic consequences to Obama's election and they knew there might be all sorts of issues, but an election is an election and you let the scenario play out first. Brexit won. End of story. I don't like it, but it was what happened in that society. Everything else - EVERYTHING else - is normal for the losing side to point out. Elections have consequences. Brexit is nonbinding. Parliament has the final say. Not saying Theresa May is going to unwind or ignore the vote, but on paper, she can, just as Parliament can do something different if they wish. Yeah, May would likely have the shortest term as PM in history, but still. www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/23/eu-referendum-legally-binding-brexit-lisbon-cameron-sovereign-parliamentwww.globalresearch.ca/brexit-referendum-is-non-binding-uk-parliament-not-voter-has-final-say/5532485...also, in OUR elections in US, remember that we don't directly elect for the candidates, just state delegates, and then Congress certifies the election. There was a brief protest in Congress in 2000 over the rigged election of Bush, but Al Gore himself helped quash that.... The non-binding route I'm far more ok with. It was part of the package on the Brexit vote that Parliament was not bound to the results so I'm fine with May not implementing it - or delaying implementation until the next election. But revoting on it.... that's inherently bullshit. The will of the people happened, elections have consequences.
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Jul 11, 2016 12:36:24 GMT -5
He wasn't Its entirely possible he wasn't counting and just used the count they gave him (honestly would not surprise me). Regardless, the error was on the military's side, not his.
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Jul 11, 2016 12:38:01 GMT -5
Well....shit
Hotmail and Skype are both reporting security violations.
|
|
|
Post by oreo062200 on Jul 11, 2016 12:40:34 GMT -5
This just in; Dallas police chief '' We're asking cops to do too much in this country'' Every societal failure , we put it off on the cops to solve said Brown. He listed mental health, drug addiction, loose dogs, failing schools as problems the public expects ''cops to solve''
''Seventy percent of the African American community is being raised by single women [ except foggy thanks btw] , lets give it to the cops to solve as well'' said Brown. Policing was never meant to solve all those problems.''
When ask what advice he would give black men, Brown said, '' become a part of the solution, serve your community . Don't be part of the problem ... we're hiring. Get off the protest line and put an application in. We'll put you in your neighborhood - we will help you resolve some of the problems you are protesting about.''
#alllivesmatter and #bluelivesmatter as well.
|
|
|
Post by deconstructiva on Jul 11, 2016 12:43:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by deconstructiva on Jul 11, 2016 12:49:04 GMT -5
Too bad the t-shirt is gone. Maybe you can buy a new one and have Andy Murray autograph it at an upcoming match. I'd bet you'd never lose that shirt.
|
|
|
Post by Outsider on Jul 11, 2016 12:49:11 GMT -5
But what if the will of the people changed? It's one thing when you think your vote is a protest vote. But once the consequences became clear, maybe they changed their mind. If it's the majority - then it's still their will. I mean, otherwise is there a time limit? I dunno; i'm just reading everyone's comments. When 5% of the population voted for Ralph Nader as a protest against Al Gore, did they get to revote when they realized that it meant George W Bush won by a Supreme Court vote? This is not a new phenomenon. Elections have consequences. For sure, but there was a time limit there. 4 years then they had to vote again. If Nader was still an option, or Gore, then they could redo it. Here there is no time limit. Besides, isn't all of this advisory anyway? I don't know the nut and bolts, so i could be completely wrong anyway - but i understood the vote to be advisory. It doesn't need to be implemented. But then maybe i'm just flat out wrong, i dunno. Regardless, consequences are a fact; but is not holding the vote punitive, or natural consequences? Both sides just do a sales job anyway; that's the way it is with every election. But as i said, this is permanent, not time constrained. So i'm curious. Not just for your opinion, i mean in general. I see it as less a black and white situation than you do, if only because the majority might actually vote another way. Nader vs Gore allowed that (in 4 years). It's interesting to me, at least on an intellectual level.
|
|
|
Post by tero on Jul 11, 2016 12:51:58 GMT -5
Yes it freaking matters! A Trump presidency will be infinitely worse than a Clinton one. Why would a Trump presidency be infinitely worse than a Clinton presidency? SZ LOL! You almost had me.
|
|
|
Post by Outsider on Jul 11, 2016 12:52:04 GMT -5
Well....shit Hotmail and Skype are both reporting security violations. Shocked! I'm shocked. Hotmail has sucked since they went to live anyway. Shit is slower than, well shit.
|
|
|
Post by tero on Jul 11, 2016 12:57:06 GMT -5
This just in; Dallas police chief '' We're asking cops to do too much in this country'' Every societal failure , we put it off on the cops to solve said Brown. He listed mental health, drug addiction, loose dogs, failing schools as problems the public expects ''cops to solve'' ''Seventy percent of the African American community is being raised by single women [ except foggy thanks btw] , lets give it to the cops to solve as well'' said Brown. Policing was never meant to solve all those problems.'' When ask what advice he would give black men, Brown said, '' become a part of the solution, serve your community . Don't be part of the problem ... we're hiring. Get off the protest line and put an application in. We'll put you in your neighborhood - we will help you resolve some of the problems you are protesting about.'' #alllivesmatter and #bluelivesmatter as well. Hmmm, it doesn't seem to be up for debate whether "all lives" or "blue lives" matter. After watching police officers blatantly murder two innocent black men in cold blood I would say that it seems to be debatable whether Black Lives Matter. I agree that too many issues are being left to police officers to solve, so maybe you should increase funding for social programs that address those problems... but that would require government spending, and we know how you cons hate spending money on anything worthwhile.
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Jul 11, 2016 13:01:11 GMT -5
But what if the will of the people changed? It's one thing when you think your vote is a protest vote. But once the consequences became clear, maybe they changed their mind. If it's the majority - then it's still their will. I mean, otherwise is there a time limit? I dunno; i'm just reading everyone's comments. When 5% of the population voted for Ralph Nader as a protest against Al Gore, did they get to revote when they realized that it meant George W Bush won by a Supreme Court vote? This is not a new phenomenon. Elections have consequences. We get to change presidents every four years. The way the UK is playing it Brexit apparently is forever.
|
|
|
Post by deconstructiva on Jul 11, 2016 13:07:41 GMT -5
This just in; Dallas police chief '' We're asking cops to do too much in this country'' Every societal failure , we put it off on the cops to solve said Brown. He listed mental health, drug addiction, loose dogs, failing schools as problems the public expects ''cops to solve'' ''Seventy percent of the African American community is being raised by single women [ except foggy thanks btw] , lets give it to the cops to solve as well'' said Brown. Policing was never meant to solve all those problems.'' When ask what advice he would give black men, Brown said, '' become a part of the solution, serve your community . Don't be part of the problem ... we're hiring. Get off the protest line and put an application in. We'll put you in your neighborhood - we will help you resolve some of the problems you are protesting about.'' #alllivesmatter and #bluelivesmatter as well. Hmmm, it doesn't seem to be up for debate whether "all lives" or "blue lives" matter. After watching police officers blatantly murder two innocent black men in cold blood I would say that it seems to be debatable whether Black Lives Matter. I agree that too many issues are being left to police officers to solve, so maybe you should increase funding for social programs that address those problems... but that would require government spending, and we know how you cons hate spending money on anything worthwhile. If Kevin the Not-Quite-So-Progressive wants less government spending, start with stopping spending on military toys for our local police forces. They don't need them. Hell, if we had any sane gun control, we could even de-arm police officers completely like Britain did for years (with armed squads for specific crises, like our SWAT units do now). But with guns flowing like water here, that's impossible.
|
|
|
Post by tittletag on Jul 11, 2016 13:13:33 GMT -5
Why would a Trump presidency be infinitely worse than a Clinton presidency? SZ Because a) He doesn't understand the concept of checks and balances. Or limits. Or the constitution. He'll act like a little kid wanting it NOW. b) He will appoint people who have no business in any government or judicial function. If we have a broken system now, it'll be worse after he starts to load incompetent political fanatics into the system. c) He has zero diplomatic ability. It was bad during the Bush years. But that'll pale in comparison with a world that absolutely loath Trump. And that can only lead to more international diplomatic incidents. d) Trump is not competent at anything other than growing his brand and financial and legal avoiding accountability for his failures. e) SCOTUS selection. Trump surrounds himself with contemptible, corrupt often criminal people.
|
|