time is on their side I think.
I am sure the EU would rather it be quick like a bandaid, but Brit should take their time, do it right.
For everybody else, it will be a time of panic (yay wall street - grow a pair already) that will hopefully keep interest rates down for the next year or so (when I look to get my own home construction loan!)
Okay, Kirov. I won't try again to reassure you that a T rump election can't happen.
Perhaps you can explain to me why the Brexit makes a T rump election more likely. I doubt if even one in four Americans knows the term. Those that do seem to be putting their own worldviews upon the explanation they chose. I don't understand why it would affect the decision process of anybody voting in our election. Most of us just don't care very much about Brexit. Our stock markets are in the territory of new highs.
I get the feeling Kirov is one of those who won't accept democracy and that a majority believe it will be better to leave EU.
I think all your mention of 2008 is entirely too kind to the Cheney Bund. There's where the trouble started - IF you want to not provoke the know-nothings by tracing it all the way back to the Reagan movement...Okay, Kirov. I won't try again to reassure you that a T rump election can't happen.
Perhaps you can explain to me why the Brexit makes a T rump election more likely. I doubt if even one in four Americans knows the term. Those that do seem to be putting their own worldviews upon the explanation they chose. I don't understand why it would affect the decision process of anybody voting in our election. Most of us just don't care very much about Brexit. Our stock markets are in the territory of new highs.
Perhaps I put it in a wrong way. I’m not saying that the Brexit affects the Nov election, I’m saying it puts this election in a new light.
First of all, you’ve got the polls. It’s a common thing that imbeciles and populists are underestimated in the polls as people are ashamed to admit whom they’d actually vote for. There is a margin, bigger or smaller, which you should often add to the result of someone universally hated and panned in the mainstream media. Happened many times in history.
I looked at the Leave-Remain and Clinton-Pig polls. They almost overlap up until the voting day. First there is a long streak of 55-45 for the ‘saner’ option, then the gap is only getting smaller and smaller. And with the Brexit, the reversal eventually comes and the rest becomes history.
Oh, and the 80/20 chances predicted by that guy you linked to in the other thread? Funny thing – 80/20 were precisely the odds for Remain given by London bookies less than 24 hrs before the vote.
Secondly, the Brexit renders moot any reasoning along the lines of “people aren’t that stupid” and any variations thereof. Maybe they’re not that stupid, but they do seem desperate enough at least to try something extraordinarily stupid. I can imagine that the pig takes at least some Sanders votes, no matter what Bernie says. When people get frustrated or angry, you can’t really expect them to make rational decisions. And the pig appears to be made out of Teflon, so you can’t count on any scandal emerging as nothing really sticks to that guy. So while any non-Dem/Rep candidates or domestic issues or healthy economy or whatever else can affect my judgment of the outcome, the “he’s too cartoonish to win” mantra is of zero relevance to me right now. T rump could vow revenge to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and still have solid chances for the office.
Thirdly, there seems to be a certain symmetry of attitudes in the Anglo-Saxon world on both sides of the pond.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/05/thatcher-reagan-blair-clinton-brexit-T rump-boris-johnson/
(make sure to correct the pig's name in the URL)
Look, I’m not saying that the pig will win. All I’m saying is that I don’t see enough grounds to dismiss this possibility. And 20% is still freakin’ huge in my book. “Hey, Kirov, look at that cliff! Let’s jump from it, you’ve got only 20% to break your neck!”.
What I’m most concerned is the unbroken string of bad news since 2008. If you went back in time and told me all of this back then, I’d have literally asked you about your depression. What keeps happening is really a steady sequence of ‘nah, it’s too bad to actually happen’s followed by ‘hey, maybe it won’t be that bad after all?’s.
And the funniest thing is, I can’t recall the last time I wanted to be wrong so badly. I hope so much that you're right!
I think all your mention of 2008 is entirely too kind to the Cheney Bund. There's where the trouble started - IF you want to not provoke the know-nothings by tracing it all the way back to the Reagan movement...
I get the feeling Kirov is one of those who won't accept democracy and that a majority believe it will be better to leave EU.
What DrazharLn said. The democratic process is all about 'informed decisions', and the Brexit was precisely the opposite of that. Read more about the blatantly false statement about GBP 350 million sent to the EU daily, and how they backpedalled on the promise to give it to the Health Service right there and then at 6 AM (!) after the voting night. Or about the role of Boris Johnson in all of this, who never actually wanted to Leave, but dreamt about improving his position in the Tory party. For that matter, the same goes for Cameron. Read about prominent Brexiteers using the word 'expert' as derogatory (!!) because how dare the economists speak about economy. And how they promised access to single market without free flow of people, which is another outrageous lie and could never happen. Or find out more about Murdoch's tabloids, which often read like Der Sturmer and Volkisher Beobachter. I mean, I understand immigration concerns - inflow of people is good for your country long-term, but it's still a social challenge to be dealt with - but there are immigration concerns and then there is rabies. Guess which one was the way of Daily Mail.
The Brexit was about as democratic as the Salem incident - the majority sure got its way, but when the insanity is over, everyone involved is in for a massive hangover.
Last bit does not compute.
First three sentences, yes of course.
But at the end of the day, it's democracy. You should accept the choice of the majority.... ill informed or otherwise.No. There are times when the majority is completely out to lunch on some issues. There's already an argument over at CFC where one person is insisting that the majority opinion is ALWAYS the "moral" position... because it's the majority.
But at the end of the day, it's democracy. You should accept the choice of the majority.... ill informed or otherwise.No. There are times when the majority is completely out to lunch on some issues. There's already an argument over at CFC where one person is insisting that the majority opinion is ALWAYS the "moral" position... because it's the majority.
As I said to him, if I happened to be wearing my anthropologist's hat, I'd have to agree with him. But I'm wearing my Valka D'Ur hat (my CFC username) and when I think of all the times throughout history when the majority opinions were anything but moral (what we consider moral), I just can't agree with him.
And I dunno - I tend to think Leave is a terrible idea and ought to be prevented somehow --- but making a big stink until they have another referendum and winning this time is the appropriate response to the crap outcome on a referendum - in a democracy... You end up causing infinite problems turning the system topsy because Democracy has been stupid, it still being less-worst than all the other systems that have been tried...
How about you mosey on over to CFC and read the threads in question before offering an evaluation of my arguments there?Your argument is subjective. That's what YOU believe. But as much as you disagree, some people believe differently. You cannot uphold YOUR beliefs, without upholding the beliefs of others.But at the end of the day, it's democracy. You should accept the choice of the majority.... ill informed or otherwise.No. There are times when the majority is completely out to lunch on some issues. There's already an argument over at CFC where one person is insisting that the majority opinion is ALWAYS the "moral" position... because it's the majority.
As I said to him, if I happened to be wearing my anthropologist's hat, I'd have to agree with him. But I'm wearing my Valka D'Ur hat (my CFC username) and when I think of all the times throughout history when the majority opinions were anything but moral (what we consider moral), I just can't agree with him.
"•Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
Interesting. So do you think it was that 33% that made the difference ?
Or that negotiations be held and a referendum decide if the negotiated deal be accepted.Nigh-impossibly tricky in practice, but democratic and thinking in the right direction.
I don't think it is as simple as that, Dale.
Not all forms of democracy are equal, and a referendum on a highly technical topic by a deliberately misinformed electorate doesn't smack of due process to me.
I would rather that the various factions and parties present their vision for the future of the UK's relationship with the EU and then that a General Election be held. Or that negotiations be held and a referendum decide if the negotiated deal be accepted.
And why in God's name would Oz want out of the Commonwealth -as opposed to the Monarchy- anyway? Where would you find wars to get involved in?
Executive Summary
The US alliance is at the core of Australia’s defence strategy.
It has led Australia into multiple wars of questionable
benefit.
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 is an example.
An enlightened strategic policy would keep us out of
unnecessary conflicts.
The US alliance compromises Australia’s independence
It raises regional tensions
It is not in Australia’s best interests.
Despite these considerations, since 2009 there are many
examples of how Australia continues to move closer to the
US, militarily.
No coherent reasons for continuing along this path have
been provided by the Australian government.
Britain doesn't have much power over the commonwealth at all, let alone dragging the other members into wars.Since when has anyone had to DRAG Bruce into a barney?
Britain doesn't have much power over the commonwealth at all, let alone dragging the other members into wars.