|
|
|
|
No. They think that democracy should do what they think is good... I saw a statistics, that suggested that Trump was elected by under-educated, old, white male citizens... But even so - he was elected!!!
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you talking about elections or erections?
I'm retired. There's a nap for that...
- Harvey
|
|
|
|
|
Yet Clinton actually got more votes, so it could be argued that democracy failed.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
I do not know what are you voting for in the US... If for the person, than the US system is totally wrong. However if it is for party, it is not unheard that one party got slightly more votes but didn't formed the government and PM is from the other party... They call it coalition...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
They mistake democracy for equality, fighting against discrimination/sexism/racism. So when someone is either of these or doesn't have combating this as their main priority they believe its undemocratic. The same can be seen in Europe.
Basically their definition of democracy has shifted from being a system where you vote to being a set of values.
I do believe it's a big part because of this Trump was successful as well as "far" right parties keep gaining ground in Europe. The middle class in these countries has been left out of focus for so long that they feel threatened and even trampled upon so when someone appeals to them it doesn't matter that those values aren't a priority.
I read an article at cracked a few months ago that made me believe that Trump would win because of these reasons. One of the main parts of the article was that large swaths of America feels left out, mostly outside the bigger cities. Combine that with my view on American infrastructure severely lacking its relatively easy to see how he can appeal to so many.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
