(12-11-2018, 08:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The real information was out there. Just because one side was spreading lies doesn't mean that the people didn't have access to the real information. They made their choice.
But people make bad choices all the time. And later correct some, because some can be corrected. I wouldn't know why this is not one of them, or shouldn't be.
I do see the point made. But then again - how is it undemocratic to do a referendum, no matter the circumstance. And now there IS more information, after all. The deal as it stands. No one could have had a total understanding about a yet non-existing Brexit deal back then.
- What about a referendum about having a second Brexit referendum. Would that be acceptable?
(12-11-2018, 08:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The real information was out there. Just because one side was spreading lies doesn't mean that the people didn't have access to the real information. They made their choice.
And I agree with this. In fact I compare it to Trump getting elected.
But still say that if this drags on and more people get elected that want to put out a second vote on it that would still be democracy at work.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(12-11-2018, 08:51 PM)Dill Wrote: As I understood it, the march was for a second referendum. Hence all the EU flags waving about. It was not an amalgamated protest.
But I have a different question now. This is the Brits' vote, not ours. But is it just their problem?
Do you think Brexit, if it happens, will affect the U.S. much, or Anlgo-American relations? Or is that just too far into the looking glass at this point? I know some US corporations are moving their headquarters out of London on the assumption they can better access the EU market from, for example, Ireland.
If Hollo is out there I wouldn't mind hearing if, or how, he thinks Brexit might measurably affect the EU/Austria.
I definitely don't think this is just their problem. This will affect many countries, some in a positive way, some negatively.
(12-11-2018, 08:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: But people make bad choices all the time. And later correct some, because some can be corrected. I wouldn't know why this is not one of them, or shouldn't be.
I do see the point made. But then again - how is it undemocratic to do a referendum, no matter the circumstance. And now there IS more information, after all. The deal as it stands. No one could have had a total understanding about a yet non-existing Brexit deal back then.
- What about a referendum about having a second Brexit referendum. Would that be acceptable?
I don't think it's undemocratic, but I don't think it is something that should be done. The shifting winds of politics could result in referendums being constantly voted on, over and over. It's not a precedent that is good.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(12-11-2018, 08:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't think it's undemocratic, but I don't think it is something that should be done. The shifting winds of politics could result in referendums being constantly voted on, over and over. It's not a precedent that is good.
I get that, solid point for sure. But letting propaganda campaigns and demagogues prevail so easily isn't a good precedent either.
And circumstances have consierably changed. It wouldn't be the "same" referendum in that sense. I don't now how you feel about the Scottish independence referendum. They had one in 2016, but now facing Brexit and a majority of Scots being against Brexit, there's a push for a new referendum. I think that is justified.
One could also say the Scots could have known in 2016 that Brexit was a possibility to be considered. Which is true.
(12-11-2018, 08:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: But people make bad choices all the time. And later correct some, because some can be corrected. I wouldn't know why this is not one of them, or shouldn't be.
I do see the point made. But then again - how is it undemocratic to do a referendum, no matter the circumstance. And now there IS more information, after all. The deal as it stands. No one could have had a total understanding about a yet non-existing Brexit deal back then.
- What about a referendum about having a second Brexit referendum. Would that be acceptable?
Who are you to tell the millions that voted for it, that it was a bad choice? I think that's the fundamental question.
It's not like the Brits were presented with a surprise vote. Each side had their opportunity to explain their side and Brexit won in a National vote.
It would be similar to Congress saying: You didn't know Trump was going to initiate a tax cut; now that we know it we should have a revote.
The people have spoken and the onus is on Parliament to honor their choice; not try to change it.
(12-11-2018, 09:07 PM)hollodero Wrote: I get that, solid point for sure. But letting propaganda campaigns and demagogues prevail so easily isn't a good precedent either.
And circumstances have consierably changed. It wouldn't be the "same" referendum in that sense. I don't now how you feel about the Scottish independence referendum. They had one in 2016, but now facing Brexit and a majority of Scots being against Brexit, there's a push for a new referendum. I think that is justified.
One could also say the Scots could have known in 2016 that Brexit was a possibility to be considered. Which is true.
And I get your point. But I think that people won't learn without living with the consequences of listening to those demagogues. If someone just comes in after the fact and says "do over!", then they have no real skin in the game. People should know that when they vote it is playing with live ammunition.
As for the Scottish independence referendum, I absolutely believe they should get another one. Brexit occurring after their referendum is a change in circumstances that would justify a new vote in my book.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(12-11-2018, 09:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who are you to tell the millions that voted for it, that it was a bad choice? I think that's the fundamental question.
But it isn't about me telling them it was a bad choice. They are free to make the same choice again. The way I see it, they would only get a second opportunity to consider the options, with new information (the now existing deal) available.
I mean, theer's a practical side to that. May doesn't get it done on her own. There seems no way to get the deal through parliament.
(12-11-2018, 08:17 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL the personal attack is your "common theme."
If you consider pointing out facts as a personal attack then, I guess? Another common tactic of you three btw, claim everything is a "personal attack". I wish you realized how laughably transparent this is.
Quote:So "personal accountability" and self-education regarding political issues are your standards today, for this thread.
You appear to be implying I have stated otherwise in previous threads. If so I would be interested in you pointing a few of them out.
Quote: Your "abdication" charge is not clearly connected to my comments about voters changing their minds. Perhaps you would argue that sticking to a vote after one has changed one's mind demonstrates personal accountability?
You claimed people were "bullshited". I pointed out that one cannot be bullshited is one chooses to educate oneself. This would appear to be the definition of personal accountability.
Quote:The U.S. is full of people who march in ideological lockstep while insisting their views are "individual" and their own. When asked to explain or defend those views, they can't do much more than reassert them or shout "it's obvious."
Oh to be sure. Sometimes the person making such statements is just as guilty as those they accuse. I doubt you'll appreciate the double edged nature of this observation.
Quote:Individuality appears, among other things, in how well people think through their positions and answer for them, as opposed to just throwing up ad hoc and frequently conflicting assertions, and then simply "standing by" them when questioned. (I bet Dino agrees . . . lockstep!)
To be sure, very few can reach your exalted level of intellectual purity. I suppose obfuscating behind intellectual Gordian knots could constitute "thinking through positions" if you try really hard. BTW, you seem to be aiming to get yet another thread locked with your tired diatribes against me.
Quote:Agreement is only meaningful if it comes from people with dissimilar positions?
Oh, not at all. It is usually more meaningful when such a situation occurs, but it by no means is exclusionary in that regard.
Quote: If Lucy were here backing the views of the EU you express in post # 10, as he likely would, would that render his agreement with you on the referendum issue "virtually meaningless"?
Seeing as how Lucie and I had very little in common on almost every issue I fail to see your point. BTW, this is yet another example of the snide tactic you three engage in that you've "never seen". That you think no one notices this doesn't speak well for you. Please, return to the subject at hand instead of trying to get another thread locked.
(12-11-2018, 09:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: But it isn't about me telling them it was a bad choice. They are free to make the same choice again. The way I see it, they would only get a second opportunity to consider the options, with new information (the now existing deal) available.
I mean, theer's a practical side to that. May doesn't get it done on her own. There seems no way to get the deal through parliament.
So do we get to second guess/ revote every referendum passed by the citizenry?
There's no new information, they still are breaking with the EU, because that's what the citizens voted for, if they dishonor that then I see it as the exact opposite of democracy.
Who knows maybe they will see it's a mistake and hold a vote to rejoin. I just hope folks that are unhappy with that decision do not advocate for a revote.
(12-11-2018, 09:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So do we get to second guess/ revote every referendum passed by the citizenry?
Depends. If the circumstances changes considerably, then it's a possibility. See second Scottish independence referendum.
(12-11-2018, 09:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There's no new information
Sure there is. A deal negotiated with the EU. Outlining what Brexit would actually mean. This is new information.
(12-11-2018, 09:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who knows maybe they will see it's a mistake and hold a vote to rejoin. I just hope folks that are unhappy with that decision do not advocate for a revote.
Would an immediate vote to rejoin be ok with you?
And if so, wouldn't a second Brexit referendum instead not just safe an enormous amount of trouble?
(12-11-2018, 09:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And I get your point. But I think that people won't learn without living with the consequences of listening to those demagogues. If someone just comes in after the fact and says "do over!", then they have no real skin in the game. People should know that when they vote it is playing with live ammunition.
You're right. They should.
But they don't. And I don't think an educational Brexit will change that.
(12-11-2018, 09:44 PM)hollodero Wrote: Depends. If the circumstances changes considerably, then it's a possibility. See second Scottish independence referendum.
Sure there is. A deal negotiated with the EU. Outlining what Brexit would actually mean. This is new information.
Would an immediate vote to rejoin be ok with you?
And if so, wouldn't a second Brexit referendum instead not just safe an enormous amount of trouble?
You're right. They should.
But they don't. And I don't think an educational Brexit will change that.
No matter what you say; Circumstances have not changed. There's still an EU, there's still a Brattain, and the citizens voted. It doesn't matter what is OK with me; however, I think they should wait for the effects positive or negative before they commit to such as reentry vote.
(12-11-2018, 09:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfa Wrote: If you consider pointing out facts as a personal attack then, I guess? Another common tactic of you three btw, claim everything is a "personal attack". I wish you realized how laughably transparent this is.
Doesn't work that way. Anyone can call other people names and then claim they are just pointing out "facts." That's how middle school bullies justify calling fat girls fat.
Claiming that Dino, some third person not on this thread, and I somehow "abdicate personal responsibility" or advocate for that is an inference and a value judgment, not a fact, especially when simply claimed.
Critical in judging whether a personal attack has occurred is whether the attacker has turned away from the topic to denigrate another poster gratuitously. E.g. by dismissing another's views as simply "hypocrisy" or laughable "inanity" or other imputed personal failings, as opposed to demonstrating some factual error or logical inconsistency in their statements. You may feel bad when the latter happens, but it is not the same as personal attack.
(12-11-2018, 09:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You appear to be implying I have stated otherwise in previous threads. If so I would be interested in you pointing a few of them out.
What I "imply" is that you frequently throw up standards to police threads, as if claiming some moral high ground, then ignore them when it suits you. E.g., one thread you are all for evidence-based argument and no speculation. On another you pop in to tell the benighted fools already posting what had to happen behind closed doors in Florida prosecutor's office. After openly proclaiming the "amusing ignorance" of all posters, you very soon complain your "expertise" is not respected. I am "belittling" you by indicating your expertise is merely asserted and cannot support your claim to special knowledge. So after a grand entry demeaning the "blinkered ignorance" of other posters you suddenly re-position yourself as victim of "shaming" by that guy in "the ivory tower."
Or sometimes its the other way around. E.g. on one thread you throw out the most extreme hyperbole (e.g., I'm an ISIS supporter because I don't call them animals). Then on another thread you pop up as the hyperbole police, as if that were typical of others. But I have already laid out this case for you on the Acosta thread, where I track your re-positioning from post to post. Super power.
Anyway, that's why I say "today" you are for personal responsibility; like "hyperbole" or "hypocrisy" as you use those terms, it has no reflexive application.
(12-11-2018, 09:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote: If Lucy were here backing the views of the EU you express in post # 10, as he likely would, would that render his agreement with you on the referendum issue "virtually meaningless"?
Seeing as how Lucie and I had very little in common on almost every issue I fail to see your point. BTW, this is yet another example of the snide tactic you three engage in that you've "never seen". That you think no one notices this doesn't speak well for you. Please, return to the subject at hand instead of trying to get another thread locked.
Where is the "snide tactic" in referencing the similarity of your statements about the EU collapse and "German domination" to Lucy's? Those were NOT Lucy's views as well? And from gun control to Muslims, there are plenty more similarities where that came from. If "personal responsibility" is your new standard, why can't you own that? I never asserted your views and Lucy's were identical. But the considerable overlap suffices for my analogy.
You said if Dino and I agreed on the referendum point, then our agreement (unlike yours and Matt's) was "meaningless" (your words) because you claim our positions are ideologically the same. As if that meant we don't get separate votes. If Lucy were here making similar statements about the EU, then joined you in "standing by" your referendum position, what's the difference? Would you say that rendered your views "meaningless"?
LOL how often you posit imaginary readers who see my posts as you do. Pretending a consensus you can't demonstrate. Those imaginary supporters don't notice anything ad hoc about your plea to "return to the subject at hand"?
Best way to stay on topic is to stay topic. Don't comment on what you perceive to be other posters' personal deficiencies. Don't explain their arguments with reference to those (perceived) deficiencies. No danger of lockdown if you stick to that rule.
Interesting. Looks like two separate consensuses, Whig and Tory, have built themselves around the issue of a Brexit revote.
A two-party forum polity is evolving.
Pro ............ Con
.............................................................................
Hollo ............ Bels
Dino ............ Bfine
Dill ............ SSF
The pros appear to agree that voters do not have to remain stuck in a bad vote. And changing votes and revoting is not a threat to democracy but an expression of it. Second opportunities are good. Perhaps voters have learned something since the last vote.
The cons appear to agree to some version of once-voters-make-their-beds-they-should-lie-in-them-till-the-next-election. If they have learned something new over the last two years, well, too late now.
One issue dividing the parties concerns how to factor in new information and/or changing circumstances after two years, whether this should make a difference, especially if a majority no longer support Brexit.
Another concerns respect for votes already cast by people who don't want to change their votes and don't want their win denied.
Still another concerns what I will call "complications"--as in what if implementing the break turns out to be what neither side wanted.
(12-12-2018, 11:08 AM)Dill Wrote: Interesting. Looks like two separate consensuses, Whig and Tory, have built themselves around the issue of a Brexit revote.
A two-party forum polity is evolving.
Pro ............ Con
.............................................................................
Hollo ............ Bels
Dino ............ Bfine
Dill ............ SSF
The pros appear to agree that voters do not have to remain stuck in a bad vote. And changing votes and revoting is not a threat to democracy but an expression of it. Second opportunities are good. Perhaps voters have learned something since the last vote.
The cons appear to agree to some version of once-voters-make-their-beds-they-should-lie-in-them-till-the-next-election. If they have learned something new over the last two years, well, too late now.
One issue dividing the parties concerns how to factor in new information and/or changing circumstances after two years, whether this should make a difference, especially if a majority no longer support Brexit.
Another concerns respect for votes already cast by people who don't want to change their votes and don't want their win denied.
Still another concerns what I will call "complications"--as in what if implementing the break turns out to be what neither side wanted.
What you're essentially saying is that if you don't like the results of a vote simply drag your feet on implementing the results until you can claim enough time has passed that a second vote is now needed. The second vote crowd are literally advocating for the complete subversion of the democratic process.
One of the more repugnant arguments among the second vote crowd is that a large percentage of leave voters will be dead in twenty or so years, so their votes shouldn't count because they won't be around to deal with the consequences.
Quote:“Brexit is the absolute hijacking of a generation by their elders, so it played a big role — but this is a vote against Theresa May above all,” said Marquardt.
(12-12-2018, 11:08 AM)Dill Wrote: Interesting. Looks like two separate consensuses, Whig and Tory, have built themselves around the issue of a Brexit revote.
A two-party forum polity is evolving.
Pro ............ Con
.............................................................................
Hollo ............ Bels
Dino ............ Bfine
Dill ............ SSF
The pros appear to agree that voters do not have to remain stuck in a bad vote. And changing votes and revoting is not a threat to democracy but an expression of it. Second opportunities are good. Perhaps voters have learned something since the last vote.
The cons appear to agree to some version of once-voters-make-their-beds-they-should-lie-in-them-till-the-next-election. If they have learned something new over the last two years, well, too late now.
One issue dividing the parties concerns how to factor in new information and/or changing circumstances after two years, whether this should make a difference, especially if a majority no longer support Brexit.
Another concerns respect for votes already cast by people who don't want to change their votes and don't want their win denied.
Still another concerns what I will call "complications"--as in what if implementing the break turns out to be what neither side wanted.
I'm not sure you're qualified to give an unbiased recap of each side's stance.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
