U.S. Politics

[MakemineVanilla]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm deeply in favour of removing referendums. 

It seems we find ourselves in the same position which inspired Bertolt Brecht to write his poem The Solution, where he wrote that the people:

Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another? 

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, omariqy said:

Should never have been a referendum on the EU. 90% people had no clue what they were voting for. Just rhetoric. I agree Brumerican about Trump surrounding himself with shady characters. It's all been a bit of a joke up until now. This could have serious ramifications across the globe. It would have been nice to see Theresa May stand up for something rather then pander to Trump already. Saying this I do welcome the end of the establishment. I just don't think a billionaire who inherited his fortune is the best man to do it.

I basically agree with the rest of your post, but I think this, in bold, is wrong. 'The establishment' is not a particularly meaningful term, but if it doesn't include the President-elect of the United States then it truly is worthless. It's been good copy, this year, to rail against 'elites' and 'the establishment' but the minute you win, as an outsider, that's what you become. It's not a thing that can end. 

[Awol]

1 hour ago, MakemineVanilla said:

It seems we find ourselves in the same position which inspired Bertolt Brecht to write his poem The Solution, where he wrote that the people:

Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another? 

I'm with you, free peoples should jealously guard the right to make awful decisions without first passing a test..

Out of interest I wonder who would have the authority to compose and judge a test that decides whether you deserve to exercise your vote? Who is the arbiter of an individual's democratic sovereignty and by what right?

 

[sharkyvilla]

3 hours ago, Keyblade said:

We're deep into the information age, with information on anything you can imagine quite literally being at your fingertips at all times, and yet we're as uninformed as ever.

Problem is we are also in the social media age too, where I suspect instead of seeking information, a certain number of impressionable people can get bombarded by a certain view that their peers share.

[Rodders]

independent electoral panel composed of the judiciary and executive. No elections - Done through in-house nominations of those able to answer questions such as " is issue X  covered by the Human Rights Act, was issue Y under the authority of British or European courts. How much money is spend in agriculture / education etc / how much is received etc etc. Would leaving the EU mean all undesirables have to go? 

Keep the test restricted to objective statements  and claims made during the campaign - anything relating to financial or legal accountability etc. 

Or if not a test, have a statement of these facts to most common concerns claimed during the campaign posted up on the polls, people need to sign they've read and understood. 

At least try at a basic level to make people aware that leaving the EU doesn't mean all "undesirables" will be shipped off at dawn the moment we leave etc or that, that money quite obviously won't be given to the NHS, or 'actually alot of the laws you think are penalising you stem from the UK parliament and not EU Courts' etc

 

 

edit.

 

anyway: it's a moot point, there won't be a referendum again, at least not for a generation or so. 

Edited November 14, 2016 by Rodders

[Awol]

35 minutes ago, Rodders said:

independent electoral panel composed of the judiciary and executive. No elections - Done through in-house nominations of those able to answer questions such as " is issue X  covered by the Human Rights Act, was issue Y under the authority of British or European courts. How much money is spend in agriculture / education etc / how much is received etc etc. Would leaving the EU mean all undesirables have to go? 

Keep the test restricted to objective statements  and claims made during the campaign - anything relating to financial or legal accountability etc. 

Or if not a test, have a statement of these facts to most common concerns claimed during the campaign posted up on the polls, people need to sign they've read and understood. 

At least try at a basic level to make people aware that leaving the EU doesn't mean all "undesirables" will be shipped off at dawn the moment we leave etc or that, that money quite obviously won't be given to the NHS, or 'actually alot of the laws you think are penalising you stem from the UK parliament and not EU Courts' etc

 

 

edit.

 

anyway: it's a moot point, there won't be a referendum again, at least not for a generation or so. 

@Rodders You've missed the point quite spectacularly.

If any grant themselves the power to deny others their sovereign democratic liberty then the very concept of an individual's democratic sovereignty is destroyed.

The right to vote in a national election or referendum is not discretionary beyond reasons of age or lawful incarceration.

There is not and can never be a 'stupid test' in a democracy.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Awol

[Xela]

4 hours ago, TheStagMan said:

I'm not. I think giving a voice to the people is the basis of democracy.

[Xela]

4 hours ago, Davkaus said:

Ok, this is all based on unnamed sources, but it's so **** funny that I had to share it.  I like to imagine that his first question was "So, as president, do I get a special hat?"

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-obama-meeting-2016-11?r=US&IR=T

Playing devils advocate, there is no evidence for that claim whatsoever, no matter how funny it might seem.

Just reads to me that that its something made up to discredit him (even further)

[Chindie]

Referendums are stupid.

I called the whole Brexit vote being a shitshow months before the vote, because it was impossible to get the information about the organisation and its effects to the people in such a way anyone could understand.

So it degenerated into rhetoric and lies of varying strength. And given the climate built up for years of daft media Remain had a fight to go against from the get go.

Trump just did the Hitler thing.

[chrisp65]

Essentially, the referendum was a simple YES/NO vote.

The only slight problem being nobody was given any useable information on what the question meant or what the consequences might be.

Just YES/NO then select your favourite political celebrity.

But at least with Brexit and with the U.S. election the 'people' have struck back and changed the balance of power. No longer will people with wealth and privilege lord it over us. The new order is people just like us.

Quote

I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. You've got to say, 'I'm a HUMAN BEING, God damn it! My life has VALUE!' So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!'

Then, when you've done that, breathe.

Breathe, look around, and see who we chose to save us from money and privilege and 'them'.

 

 

 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

6 hours ago, omariqy said:

Should never have been a referendum on the EU. 90% people had no clue what they were voting for. Just rhetoric. I agree Brumerican about Trump surrounding himself with shady characters. It's all been a bit of a joke up until now. This could have serious ramifications across the globe. It would have been nice to see Theresa May stand up for something rather then pander to Trump already. Saying this I do welcome the end of the establishment. I just don't think a billionaire who inherited his fortune is the best man to do it.

That is the same as a general election surely ? How many people really a) Vote at all b ) know all the policies and the impact these may have long term c) Even if they do vote for who or what they believe in there is nothing (See tuition fees) to stop rocket polishers going back on there word a complete 180 degrees.

 So if the 90% had no clue about a single subject then logically approx 99% at the general election have no clue whatsoever ? (If you count a,b and c as having the same impact overall)

Referendums all the way,  IF the campaigns are kept in line then for major decisions this is the way to go,  politicians can no longer lie,  they will be dealt with on the next referendum or they resign (they will have to do this in reality).  Simple really.  Keeps the public interested and the politicians walking a tightrope of doing the right thing for once or filling their own deep pockets.

[Rugeley Villa]

I've got a bit of a thing for Theresa May. Something about her.

[snowychap]

4 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

I've got a bit of a thing for Theresa May. Something about her.

Incontinence?

Edited November 14, 2016 by snowychap

[Rugeley Villa]

5 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Incontinence?

I'd love to find out.

[LondonLax]

The idea of a representative democracy is that we elect people whose full time job it is is to study and debate issues then come to a decision on our behalf. 

With direct democracy every voter has to be across every issue before making a decision.

People don't have time to become as informed on issues as a person whose full time job is to do just that. In addition we have the very unreliable internet to get a lot of our information from. 

Direct democracy is a bad way to try to run a country. 

[TheStagMan]

7 hours ago, Davkaus said:

but people need protecting from themselves

Wow! Spoken like a true dictator. 

 

Protecting the people from themselves. Go listen to yourself. Wow. I get that there are lots of sore remainers on here, but again, spectacularly missing the point of why you lost with comments like that.

Who the hell has the right to decide someone else's opinion is less valuable or more wrong than theirs?

Edited November 14, 2016 by TheStagMan

[Davkaus]

Referenda are a wonderful idea, in an ideal world in which we would have a well-informed electorate. 

[chrisp65]

6 minutes ago, TheStagMan said:

Wow! Spoken like a true dictator. 

 

Protecting the people from themselves. Go listen to yourself. Wow. I get that there are lots of sore remainers on here, but again, spectacularly missing the point of why you lost with comments like that.

Who the hell has the right to decide someone else's opinion is less valuable or more wrong than theirs?

When we have a system that produces a candidate that doesn't know what a Leppo is, perhaps it's not fair to ask the electorate what the best policy might be.

Look at how many people have been outraged by gay judges dabbling in politics and then tell me they understood what they were voting on.

To be clear, the same goes for both sides. Very few people have the tools to fully understand and research a poorly phrased question where lies and stupid claims were the fodder for the masses.

It was a con. It was a con, whoever won. Nothing to do with sore remainers and dictators.

[StefanAVFC]

11 minutes ago, TheStagMan said:

Wow! Spoken like a true dictator. 

The exactly opposite. We live in a representative democracy. We elect people whose job it is to make these decisions so ignorant people don't make them. I fully acknowledge my own ignorance on many matters that MPs spend their career working with. I'd prefer they make decisions as a collective with known facts and experience, rather than millions of totally uninformed and ignorant people. That's what make that 'we're sick of experts' rhetoric so mindlessly stupid.

Being against referenda doesn't make you a dictator. The opposite really.

Not sure why you have make remainer jibes or 'ha ha you lost' comments either.

[maqroll]

11 hours ago, Awol said:

...and George Washington was the United States' first millionaire - by the time he left Office..

Is this a Wah or serious? 

I'm close to certain that he didn't know who he was until he met him