Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Gavagai]

Brian, I think that both Trump and Clinton state beliefs which would be disastorous for US and the whole world if seriously implemented.
However, I don't think that Trump is sincere, I think he is just saying stuff which he thinks would bring him more votes. Also, even if he wins, the Congress will hate him and he won't be able to do anything major.
By contrast, Clinton is a bit more sincere (though by no means completely so) and she is far more likely to have a loyal Congress. From that follows that she is much more likely to actually follow through with her promises.
That's why I think electing Trump would be better for US.

[Mardoc]

Why anyone votes for someone who so utterly goes against both their own interests (I cannot see how a Trump presidency will help anyone,

So here's the argument I've personally found most convincing: a vote for Trump is a vote for deadlock. Remember, the US is *not* a parliamentary system. Just because Trump is nominally a Republican is no reason to expect the party in Congress to cooperate with him. On top, he's not a professional politician, which means it's quite likely that when he *can* find something to cooperate with Congress about, it'll be Congress in the driver's seat and Trump as the figurehead.

If you believe that none of the candidates are any good...at least deadlock might keep things from getting worse long enough to get a better choice next go-round.

I'll still probably vote Johnson.

[ReallyEvilMuffin]

Why anyone votes for someone who so utterly goes against both their own interests (I cannot see how a Trump presidency will help anyone,

So here's the argument I've personally found most convincing: a vote for Trump is a vote for deadlock. Remember, the US is *not* a parliamentary system. Just because Trump is nominally a Republican is no reason to expect the party in Congress to cooperate with him. On top, he's not a professional politician, which means it's quite likely that when he *can* find something to cooperate with Congress about, it'll be Congress in the driver's seat and Trump as the figurehead.

If you believe that none of the candidates are any good...at least deadlock might keep things from getting worse long enough to get a better choice next go-round.

I'll still probably vote Johnson.

Completely agree. The republicans I understood had come to terms with him as a non professional politician he doesn't have many 'people' that will fill certain offices. Therefore he could be a figurehead whilst they could still do the nuts and bolts stuff. Plus definitely agree with Gavagi - he knows that half of what he says is impossible, and does it to try and get appeal. He can then put it to the house, and say 'I tried'.

[ReallyEvilMuffin]

I'm not British and I don't have a personal stake in this matter but I want just to say this. The arrogance of "Remain" camp, their utter contempt and disrespect towards political adversaries are so off-putting that it makes me root for "Leave" voters (even though I would most probably vote "Remain" if I were UK citizen).

The leave campaign were twice as arrogant. Every single thing they said was a lie, and worse, they never had an intention of going through with their promises. In fact, the real reason for most of the leave campaign to campaign was not to leave the EU (of the big boys, only Oiky Gove and Farage are true anti EUs) but to stab Cameron in the back.

Because of mostly same reasons, I root for Trump in US elections in November in USA, btw (to be fair, even ignoring this aspect I would vote for Trump in November if I were US citizen). Really, a guy said that a Mexican is a Mexican and he is somehow racist because of that. When I hear stuff like this, I just wonder, what a person should have done with his mind to find that kind of logic appealing.

Why anyone votes for someone who so utterly goes against both their own interests (I cannot see how a Trump presidency will help anyone, you can understand rich people voting Republican normally but not Trump) and against common human morality, I will never understand.

And re the Mexicans, I cannot understand how somebody could defend a man who will demonise a whole other ethnicity (Trump described all Mexicans as robbers and racists, not an accurate description of the vast majority of Mexicans, just as it wouldn't be if used to describe WASP Americans) in order to gain politically. Trump is a fascist, plain and simple. The only difference between him and the likes of Mussolini is that demagogically he's also incompetent.

Remain were incredibly arrogant and hugely patronising. Shown perhaps even moreso in the fallout. People stating that their lives are in tatters. Calling all people with different opinion to them either idiots, or not worthy of an opinion as they are older than them and have less life to live. This is the same entitled class that could not grasp the 2015 election result, that Corbyn is kryptonite with large portions of the electorate and that AV is the only sensible choice.

[Mardoc]

And to use that to get back to the original focus: the bit that bewilders me the most about Brexit (and the Scottish independence vote, and several others in Europe) is that it's a simple majority, once. In my context, you're talking about a Constitutional change for these sorts of things: two supermajorities, one in Congress and one in the States. Of course, if the UK were like the US, they'd have needed a similar vote to *join* the EU, which probably would never have happened. Still, if you write the rules that way, then you can actually settle the question, rather than get one of these bare majorities that lead to widespread discontent.

[ReallyEvilMuffin]

And to use that to get back to the original focus: the bit that bewilders me the most about Brexit (and the Scottish independence vote, and several others in Europe) is that it's a simple majority, once. In my context, you're talking about a Constitutional change for these sorts of things: two supermajorities, one in Congress and one in the States. Of course, if the UK were like the US, they'd have needed a similar vote to *join* the EU, which probably would never have happened. Still, if you write the rules that way, then you can actually settle the question, rather than get one of these bare majorities that lead to widespread discontent.

I disagree there - super majorities are needed in senates/parliaments as parties win control on sometimes lowish shares of the vote. For referenda, turnout thresholds are better than supermajorities. Maybe not so much with the EU, but I cannot think of a more unstable situation in Scotland if like 60% of the country wanted to leave the union but there had to be a 66% threshold.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

this isn't the trump thread, this is the brexit thread, if you really want to post your white supremacist infographics, do it in another thread

so we can fire it into the sun

[Mr. Cairo]

Remain were incredibly arrogant and hugely patronising. Shown perhaps even moreso in the fallout. People stating that their lives are in tatters. Calling all people with different opinion to them either idiots, or not worthy of an opinion as they are older than them and have less life to live. This is the same entitled class that could not grasp the 2015 election result, that Corbyn is kryptonite with large portions of the electorate and that AV is the only sensible choice.

What I find bewildering right now is that somehow, because Leave won the referendum, people who supported Remain are not allowed to be upset about it? Of course people who believe in the EU and believe in the UK being part of it are going to be upset, even angry. And they'll do what they can to avoid sending the country in a direction they don't believe in. If Remain had won instead, I highly doubt you'd be saying "well, guess I have to support Britain's membership of the EU forever now."

And just as calling all leavers racist is unhelpful and untrue, so too is saying that the entire segment of the population who wanted to remain are all arrogant and patronising. Neither me, nor any other person I know who voted remain thinks that way about leavers, yet somehow we are now being made out to be elitist assholes who should just get over it.

People's lives are in tatters. I know several people who's SOs are EU citizens who may lose residency depending on the exit negotiations. I know several people whose entire livelihoods are at risk because their universities will lose billions in EU funding, but I guess since they're elitist academics they don't count. How about the millions of EU citizens who live, work, and pay taxes in the UK, who feel that the county they chose to call home has rejected them? I suppose their lives don't count either.

[novice]

If Remain had won instead, I highly doubt you'd be saying "well, guess I have to support Britain's membership of the EU forever now."

That's interesting. It leaves me wondering, why was the referendum held in the first place? If not for this, then why?

(I haven't been paying attention to this whole Brexit thing before after the fact, it didn't get a lot of coverage in Norway, presumably because everyone considered it a formality.)

[Gazglum]

As far as we can tell, the referendum was largely held by David Cameron as a way of keeping the right-wing of the Tory party from switching to the Nationalists in the 2015 election. He told European leaders that he would 'probably win it 70/30', and that there was no need to worry.

The fact that nobody in government actually made any plan for what to do if Leave won, shows that the referendum wasn't being taken seriously by them. They were idiots, idiots, idiots. (I'm referring to the people like Cameron who triggered this, and didn't want the result. Genuine Leavers have at least been consistent).