|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On June 25 2016 07:05 plasmidghost wrote:
Good lord, Gibraltar voted 96% in favor of Remain, is there any other place in the UK with figures nearly that one-sided?
Spain didn't waited a second to offer a co-sovereignty temporally.
|
On June 25 2016 07:09 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 07:01 Deleuze wrote:On June 25 2016 06:58 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 06:54 FlaShFTW wrote:On June 24 2016 17:28 hfglgg wrote:On June 24 2016 17:26 FlaShFTW wrote:On June 24 2016 17:21 Lebesgue wrote:On June 24 2016 17:07 Linear wrote:On June 24 2016 17:04 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
[quote]
I can't recall there being "safe spaces" in universities 30 years ago.Progress!
Fact is the youth are increasingly stuck in a child-like state, not able to think critically or entertain ideas outside of what the left wing politically correct dogma of the day is.
Their argument was based on brexiters being "racist", ignoring the fact that Poland doesn't have any black people.The government in fact made it harder for Non-EU immigrants to enter because they were getting so many (overwhelmingly white) EU migrants. As a young person I don't give a flying fuck about the politics of the matter I only care what makes sound fiscal sense leaving the EU doesn't make any sense it that regard so it's a bad idea. Pretty simple concept to grasp. Spot on. What a f***ing mess this is. And that's why referendums with 50% thresholds are useless. A higher margin should be required for such a momentous decisions... because thats literally how a democracy works. majority wins. it doesnt. Democracy: control of an organization or group by the majority of its members. >50% = majority. Democracy how again? Um....here in the US we require a two thirds majority to pull shit of this level. We do not allow tyranny of the majority to, say for instance, create new states or amend the constitution. There's a petition to this effect that no-one noticed until this morning I love all the people who are experts on how democracy works and don’t understand the basic concept of tyranny of the majority and that is destroys unions. But hey, you got 1% more than the other side, I guess that is a mandate for this crazy thing that will alter the very fabric of the nation. The vote is over and its done, but whoever said it could be 50% to be valid an idiot. Some people are regretting their 'protest' votes now. Dunno actual figures, but personally I've seen brexiteers sharing this petition in remorse. I laugh at them. They've made a bed that I have to sleep in. That's how you do a referendumb.
It would be funny if I didn't read the story of the couple that canceling their wedding because they are sure either of their jobs will be around in 6 months. And one of them might have to go back to the UK. It just sounds like a huge bummer for anyone who was using the system and a victory for those who were not, or won't be effected.
|
On June 25 2016 07:05 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 06:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 25 2016 06:27 Diabolique wrote:On June 25 2016 06:14 nojok wrote:On June 25 2016 05:54 NukeD wrote:On June 25 2016 05:51 Hryul wrote:
Erdogan is portrayed almost as evil as Putin. Putin is evil? I'm quite a fan of the guy myself. So is most of Croatia. I wonder how rest of the European countries resonate on this. Annihilation of free press, murders of journalsits, maybe the richest person in the world, nah he's a great guy, sure... Exactly ... Putin is no evil, he is a very smart guy. A KGB agent, liar, mafia "associate" ... But in any case, he is clearly a megalomaniac, because Russia needs for this role some megalomaniac. But no evil. A very smart, rich and corrupt guy. If Trump stops to support the no-army EU with his military and the only country having some reasonable army, UK, leaves, there is a good possibility that Putin comes to (at least a part of) Europe to save the people with his tanks from the western decadence. Very dangerous. Most people here who talk about Russia with their "clever" one-liner zingers clearly have about as much knowledge about how things actually work in Russia as Yahoo News comment section trolls. I think that the Western propaganda channels have done a good enough job of demonizing him that that starts to seem acceptable. In case there are any people here who actually want some information, here's a tidbit that might be worth something. Putin definitely looks pretty bizarre by Western standards, in large part because he inherited one of the shittiest economic collapses possible, and has to deal with a rather corrupt system. Obviously he is not without fault, as he was a member of the corrupt elite that inherited the nation's wealth after 1991, but he stopped the economic raids of the 90s and coalesced those who inherited a lot into the new wealthy elite. Probably the best outcome given that those new billionaires were generally those who knew how to run the industry they acquired. And there's been quite a lot of successful anti-corruption measures in Russia over his tenure, especially starting about 5 years ago. Voting is of course problematic but his approval ratings (generally between 60% and 80%, though they've been much lower than that before) and electoral support are genuine. Most of the dislike for him, however, comes from the fact that Russian leaders, including Putin, have a tendency to be willing to oppose NATO interests, with force if necessary. It's been interesting to see how Western media oscillates between portraying him as a pragmatic leader and the next Hitler, depending on whether or not US and Russian FP interests align. Generally you can expect Russian action in some US sphere of influence to be followed by a propaganda blitz all over the US-allied world. How about the fact that Putin still uses a form of crony capitalism, didn't diversify the economy away from oil at all, supresses free press and free speech, goes into pointless wars and oversees a huge recession. I'm not going to say he didn't do good things since I am sure he did but there is plenty of critique you can level at him next to not being friendly to NATO.
There's plenty of valid criticism against Putin, and if these threads didn't devolve into a "bash Russia" party then I would probably post them a lot more often. I do, in fact, post tidbits here and there about genuine structural weaknesses within Russia and how Putin's government contributed to them, whenever it is actually relevant to the discussion. But that's not really the point. The point is:
1. Putin is a president with a reasonable set of strengths and weaknesses, who is working within a corrupt system and has improved it tremendously (though he is not without blame for its creation). His general, but not always persistent, high approval rating echoes this fact.
2. None of that really matters with regards to why he is so strongly demonized within the Western media. Geopolitics and NATO have everything to do with that.
|
On June 25 2016 06:57 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 06:55 Diabolique wrote:On June 25 2016 06:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 25 2016 06:27 Diabolique wrote:On June 25 2016 06:14 nojok wrote:On June 25 2016 05:54 NukeD wrote:On June 25 2016 05:51 Hryul wrote:
Erdogan is portrayed almost as evil as Putin. Putin is evil? I'm quite a fan of the guy myself. So is most of Croatia. I wonder how rest of the European countries resonate on this. Annihilation of free press, murders of journalsits, maybe the richest person in the world, nah he's a great guy, sure... Exactly ... Putin is no evil, he is a very smart guy. A KGB agent, liar, mafia "associate" ... But in any case, he is clearly a megalomaniac, because Russia needs for this role some megalomaniac. But no evil. A very smart, rich and corrupt guy. If Trump stops to support the no-army EU with his military and the only country having some reasonable army, UK, leaves, there is a good possibility that Putin comes to (at least a part of) Europe to save the people with his tanks from the western decadence. Very dangerous. Most people here who talk about Russia with their "clever" one-liner zingers clearly have about as much knowledge about how things actually work in Russia as Yahoo News comment section trolls. I think that the Western propaganda channels have done a good enough job of demonizing him that that starts to seem acceptable. In case there are any people here who actually want some information, here's a tidbit that might be worth something. Putin definitely looks pretty bizarre by Western standards, in large part because he inherited one of the shittiest economic collapses possible, and has to deal with a rather corrupt system. Obviously he is not without fault, as he was a member of the corrupt elite that inherited the nation's wealth after 1991, but he stopped the economic raids of the 90s and coalesced those who inherited a lot into the new wealthy elite. Probably the best outcome given that those new billionaires were generally those who knew how to run the industry they acquired. And there's been quite a lot of successful anti-corruption measures in Russia over his tenure, especially starting about 5 years ago. Voting is of course problematic but his approval ratings (generally between 60% and 80%, though they've been much lower than that before) and electoral support are genuine. Most of the dislike for him, however, comes from the fact that Russian leaders, including Putin, have a tendency to be willing to oppose NATO interests, with force if necessary. It's been interesting to see how Western media oscillates between portraying him as a pragmatic leader and the next Hitler, depending on whether or not US and Russian FP interests align. Generally you can expect Russian action in some US sphere of influence to be followed by a propaganda blitz all over the US-allied world. It is nice to see that you read some encyclopedic information. At the same time, unfortunately, you have not the slightest idea about Russia. Since you said it then clearly he does not.
Well, he does not. I have twenty years of practical experience living under different Russian leaders, I am used to their mentality and Putin has all the signs of the previous Russian leaders, only in a capitalist / corrupt system. I see the activities of Russian KGB employees in my country and western countries and I see their propaganda in social media and in discussions every day. On the other hand, I read opinions of Russians, who escaped the country and are now writing critically about Putin and his mafia of friends. And it all forms a perfect picture.
And then, some kid writes in some discussion, that Putin is actually a good guy with lots of success and anyone, who thinks something else, is infected by the "western / NATO general media". Trust me, I do not need some "western / NATO general media" to know what I see in the case of Putin. I can just pity this kid for his ignorance.
|
On June 25 2016 07:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Oh dear, the UK politics thread has been taken over by non UK people. To quickly answer the last 3 pages of randomness:
Since Scotland and Ireland will be likely to secede, Little England(er) would be an appropriate name. Wales might take offence. BTW Great Britain is the name of the main island, not the name of the country. The name of our country is actually The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or UK for short.
No, UK will not ally with Russia. Don't be silly. Perhaps if England feels like invading France. Or Ukraine. Got to use that most powerful military in the EU somewhere to detract from lack of oil revenue when Scotland leaves I guess.
The Leave media vastly outperformed Remain media. It was so lopsided that if you got the opposite impression, congratulations, you read one of the only few remaining quality newspapers in UK.
Nobody has a clue what a brexit actually means. It's unprecedented and it wasn't laid out by the "leaders" of the brexit camp who seems rather suprised that they have won. Especially Boris Johnson who did a runner when left his house in the moring.
The youth population are pro-EU because they are the ones most affected by leaving the EU.
I don't for a second buy that Scotland or NI will have a referendum, honestly.
|
On June 25 2016 07:14 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 07:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Oh dear, the UK politics thread has been taken over by non UK people. To quickly answer the last 3 pages of randomness:
Since Scotland and Ireland will be likely to secede, Little England(er) would be an appropriate name. Wales might take offence. BTW Great Britain is the name of the main island, not the name of the country. The name of our country is actually The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or UK for short.
No, UK will not ally with Russia. Don't be silly. Perhaps if England feels like invading France. Or Ukraine. Got to use that most powerful military in the EU somewhere to detract from lack of oil revenue when Scotland leaves I guess.
The Leave media vastly outperformed Remain media. It was so lopsided that if you got the opposite impression, congratulations, you read one of the only few remaining quality newspapers in UK.
Nobody has a clue what a brexit actually means. It's unprecedented and it wasn't laid out by the "leaders" of the brexit camp who seems rather suprised that they have won. Especially Boris Johnson who did a runner when left his house in the moring.
The youth population are pro-EU because they are the ones most affected by leaving the EU.
I don't for a second buy that Scotland or NI will have a referendum, honestly.
Shin Feinn and the SNP have both publically stated they want to consider it. It's not as if we're at the point where populist gestures are taken seriously right, right?
|
On June 25 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 07:01 Deleuze wrote:On June 25 2016 06:58 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 06:54 FlaShFTW wrote:On June 24 2016 17:28 hfglgg wrote:On June 24 2016 17:26 FlaShFTW wrote:On June 24 2016 17:21 Lebesgue wrote:On June 24 2016 17:07 Linear wrote:On June 24 2016 17:04 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On June 24 2016 17:00 SC2Toastie wrote:
[quote]
- Because people that finish higher education tend to be better at understanding and critically questioning information.
- Old people have other interests and are more affected by instinct over factual information: 'the past' when 'everything was better' for example. I can't recall there being "safe spaces" in universities 30 years ago.Progress! Fact is the youth are increasingly stuck in a child-like state, not able to think critically or entertain ideas outside of what the left wing politically correct dogma of the day is. Their argument was based on brexiters being "racist", ignoring the fact that Poland doesn't have any black people.The government in fact made it harder for Non-EU immigrants to enter because they were getting so many (overwhelmingly white) EU migrants. As a young person I don't give a flying fuck about the politics of the matter I only care what makes sound fiscal sense leaving the EU doesn't make any sense it that regard so it's a bad idea. Pretty simple concept to grasp. Spot on. What a f***ing mess this is. And that's why referendums with 50% thresholds are useless. A higher margin should be required for such a momentous decisions... because thats literally how a democracy works. majority wins. it doesnt. Democracy: control of an organization or group by the majority of its members. >50% = majority. Democracy how again? Um....here in the US we require a two thirds majority to pull shit of this level. We do not allow tyranny of the majority to, say for instance, create new states or amend the constitution. There's a petition to this effect that no-one noticed until this morning I love all the people who are experts on how democracy works and don’t understand the basic concept of tyranny of the majority and that is destroys unions. But hey, you got 1% more than the other side, I guess that is a mandate for this crazy thing that will alter the very fabric of the nation. The vote is over and its done, but whoever said it could be 50% to be valid an idiot.
I don't think it's an issue of the dangers of tyranny of the majority (there's no clear majority attempting to oppress a minority). It's an issue of the dangers of making large changes based on a majority that can change with the winds (like you said, for countries with written constitutions status quo is generally stronger than a simple majority when trying to change it).
|
But I take from this whole discussion one very good point, so thanks to the one, who brought it here:
It is stupid to let to decide about this kind of event by a 50% majority. Primarily, when it ends at the end 51.9%:48.1%. It is a valid opinion, but should not cause such a serious action, as that will be against the will of 48%. It was Cameron's mistake, that he just expected, it would be a walkover, and let there the 50%.
|
On June 25 2016 07:18 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 07:14 jello_biafra wrote:On June 25 2016 07:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Oh dear, the UK politics thread has been taken over by non UK people. To quickly answer the last 3 pages of randomness:
Since Scotland and Ireland will be likely to secede, Little England(er) would be an appropriate name. Wales might take offence. BTW Great Britain is the name of the main island, not the name of the country. The name of our country is actually The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or UK for short.
No, UK will not ally with Russia. Don't be silly. Perhaps if England feels like invading France. Or Ukraine. Got to use that most powerful military in the EU somewhere to detract from lack of oil revenue when Scotland leaves I guess.
The Leave media vastly outperformed Remain media. It was so lopsided that if you got the opposite impression, congratulations, you read one of the only few remaining quality newspapers in UK.
Nobody has a clue what a brexit actually means. It's unprecedented and it wasn't laid out by the "leaders" of the brexit camp who seems rather suprised that they have won. Especially Boris Johnson who did a runner when left his house in the moring.
The youth population are pro-EU because they are the ones most affected by leaving the EU.
I don't for a second buy that Scotland or NI will have a referendum, honestly. Shin Feinn and the SNP have both publically stated they want to consider it. It's not as if we're at the point where populist gestures are taken seriously right, right?
I know they've suggested it but I highly, highly doubt it will happen, they don't have the power to call referendums. It'll be forgotten as soon as the dust settles.
I could be wrong of course, but I just don't see more referendums happening so soon.
|
On June 25 2016 07:23 Diabolique wrote:
But I take from this whole discussion one very good point, so thanks to the one, who brought it here:
It is stupid to let to decide about this kind of event by a 50% majority. Primarily, when it ends at the end 51.9%:48.1%. It is a valid opinion, but should not cause such a serious action, as that will be against the will of 48%. It was Cameron's mistake, that he just expected, it would be a walkover, and let there the 50%.
Yep. It's the stupidest thing. Really. I mean. Christ. Its got to be the most epic political fail in history.
|
Don't forget not everybody voted!
It was something like 36% for leave if we take the whole population into account. Just saying.
|
On June 25 2016 07:13 Diabolique wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 06:57 NukeD wrote:On June 25 2016 06:55 Diabolique wrote:On June 25 2016 06:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 25 2016 06:27 Diabolique wrote:On June 25 2016 06:14 nojok wrote:On June 25 2016 05:54 NukeD wrote:On June 25 2016 05:51 Hryul wrote:
Erdogan is portrayed almost as evil as Putin. Putin is evil? I'm quite a fan of the guy myself. So is most of Croatia. I wonder how rest of the European countries resonate on this. Annihilation of free press, murders of journalsits, maybe the richest person in the world, nah he's a great guy, sure... Exactly ... Putin is no evil, he is a very smart guy. A KGB agent, liar, mafia "associate" ... But in any case, he is clearly a megalomaniac, because Russia needs for this role some megalomaniac. But no evil. A very smart, rich and corrupt guy. If Trump stops to support the no-army EU with his military and the only country having some reasonable army, UK, leaves, there is a good possibility that Putin comes to (at least a part of) Europe to save the people with his tanks from the western decadence. Very dangerous. Most people here who talk about Russia with their "clever" one-liner zingers clearly have about as much knowledge about how things actually work in Russia as Yahoo News comment section trolls. I think that the Western propaganda channels have done a good enough job of demonizing him that that starts to seem acceptable. In case there are any people here who actually want some information, here's a tidbit that might be worth something. Putin definitely looks pretty bizarre by Western standards, in large part because he inherited one of the shittiest economic collapses possible, and has to deal with a rather corrupt system. Obviously he is not without fault, as he was a member of the corrupt elite that inherited the nation's wealth after 1991, but he stopped the economic raids of the 90s and coalesced those who inherited a lot into the new wealthy elite. Probably the best outcome given that those new billionaires were generally those who knew how to run the industry they acquired. And there's been quite a lot of successful anti-corruption measures in Russia over his tenure, especially starting about 5 years ago. Voting is of course problematic but his approval ratings (generally between 60% and 80%, though they've been much lower than that before) and electoral support are genuine. Most of the dislike for him, however, comes from the fact that Russian leaders, including Putin, have a tendency to be willing to oppose NATO interests, with force if necessary. It's been interesting to see how Western media oscillates between portraying him as a pragmatic leader and the next Hitler, depending on whether or not US and Russian FP interests align. Generally you can expect Russian action in some US sphere of influence to be followed by a propaganda blitz all over the US-allied world. It is nice to see that you read some encyclopedic information. At the same time, unfortunately, you have not the slightest idea about Russia. Since you said it then clearly he does not. Well, he does not. I have twenty years of practical experience living under different Russian leaders, I am used to their mentality and Putin has all the signs of the previous Russian leaders, only in a capitalist / corrupt system. I see the activities of Russian KGB employees in my country and western countries and I see their propaganda in social media and in discussions every day. On the other hand, I read opinions of Russians, who escaped the country and are now writing critically about Putin and his mafia of friends. And it all forms a perfect picture. And then, some kid writes in some discussion, that Putin is actually a good guy with lots of success and anyone, who thinks something else, is infected by the "western / NATO general media". Trust me, I do not need some "western / NATO general media" to know what I see in the case of Putin. I can just pity this kid about his ignorance.
I can offer anecdotal evidence to the contrary, that Russia and the Warsaw nations were not that bad to live in (generally I saw a lot more people who convinced themselves that that they were oppressed while living under conditions as good as those in Russia itself, which were worse than those in the West but still quite decent). In fact, I'd generally be willing to discuss the issue in more depth, as there were clearly both strengths and weaknesses in the USSR/Warsaw governments and in Putin's current government.
However, it seems that instead you're interested in posting dismissive one-liners, complaining about how no one but you knows how things work, and claiming that only "some kid" would dare to say anything good (more like qualified support than straight praise, really) about Putin. Given that, and that this is a UK thread and it's going off topic, there's no point in going further on this.
On the original point, about UK/Russia: this is very unlikely to change anything. UK and Russia are not and never have been strategically close, and it's Germany, France, and East Europe that Russia is more likely to have closer ties with in case of future political realignments. If anything, Russia's biggest interest in this would be to stick it to the EU.
|
I think the Russia UK thing is a tangential fantasy.
We're Airstrip One now
|
On June 25 2016 07:20 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 07:01 Deleuze wrote:On June 25 2016 06:58 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 06:54 FlaShFTW wrote:On June 24 2016 17:28 hfglgg wrote:On June 24 2016 17:26 FlaShFTW wrote:On June 24 2016 17:21 Lebesgue wrote:On June 24 2016 17:07 Linear wrote:On June 24 2016 17:04 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
[quote]
I can't recall there being "safe spaces" in universities 30 years ago.Progress!
Fact is the youth are increasingly stuck in a child-like state, not able to think critically or entertain ideas outside of what the left wing politically correct dogma of the day is.
Their argument was based on brexiters being "racist", ignoring the fact that Poland doesn't have any black people.The government in fact made it harder for Non-EU immigrants to enter because they were getting so many (overwhelmingly white) EU migrants. As a young person I don't give a flying fuck about the politics of the matter I only care what makes sound fiscal sense leaving the EU doesn't make any sense it that regard so it's a bad idea. Pretty simple concept to grasp. Spot on. What a f***ing mess this is. And that's why referendums with 50% thresholds are useless. A higher margin should be required for such a momentous decisions... because thats literally how a democracy works. majority wins. it doesnt. Democracy: control of an organization or group by the majority of its members. >50% = majority. Democracy how again? Um....here in the US we require a two thirds majority to pull shit of this level. We do not allow tyranny of the majority to, say for instance, create new states or amend the constitution. There's a petition to this effect that no-one noticed until this morning I love all the people who are experts on how democracy works and don’t understand the basic concept of tyranny of the majority and that is destroys unions. But hey, you got 1% more than the other side, I guess that is a mandate for this crazy thing that will alter the very fabric of the nation. The vote is over and its done, but whoever said it could be 50% to be valid an idiot. I don't think it's an issue of the dangers of tyranny of the majority (there's no clear majority attempting to oppress a minority). It's an issue of the dangers of making large changes based on a majority that can change with the winds (like you said, for countries with written constitutions status quo is generally stronger than a simple majority when trying to change it).
In this case you have 16 million being told having their lives altered and rights they previously enjoyed voided by 17 million. I'm not going to say that its oppression, but I doubt it is going to be fun. Or that the 16 million people are going be passive about their unhappiness once they catch their breath.
As mandates go, its pretty weak for the level of change it is imposing on the losing side.
|
On June 25 2016 06:45 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 06:40 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 06:37 plasmidghost wrote:
Everything is fearmongering and speculation though, there's very little in terms of facts that happens when votes like Brexit occurs. It's a shame but humans are naturally fearful creatures What if they are really afraid? They probably are. Terrorism, the economy potentially crashing at any moment, any number of things really are causing them fear. All I can do is hope that they make sound, logical choices, which they didn't. Even though they didn't, they made the choice they wanted to and now must accept the consequences. Such is how the world works Now this interesting. Because for preventing terrorism it is not clear at all, if this was a good move.
www.theguardian.com - Northern Irish Peace Sacrificed English Nationalism
Sure you blocked some ISIS guy disguised as a refugee, but you might have revived the IRA!
As an Englishmen I would be more afraid of future terrorism now that borders and armed guards will once again go up in Ireland...
|
On June 25 2016 07:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 07:13 Diabolique wrote:On June 25 2016 06:57 NukeD wrote:On June 25 2016 06:55 Diabolique wrote:On June 25 2016 06:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 25 2016 06:27 Diabolique wrote:On June 25 2016 06:14 nojok wrote:On June 25 2016 05:54 NukeD wrote:On June 25 2016 05:51 Hryul wrote:
Erdogan is portrayed almost as evil as Putin. Putin is evil? I'm quite a fan of the guy myself. So is most of Croatia. I wonder how rest of the European countries resonate on this. Annihilation of free press, murders of journalsits, maybe the richest person in the world, nah he's a great guy, sure... Exactly ... Putin is no evil, he is a very smart guy. A KGB agent, liar, mafia "associate" ... But in any case, he is clearly a megalomaniac, because Russia needs for this role some megalomaniac. But no evil. A very smart, rich and corrupt guy. If Trump stops to support the no-army EU with his military and the only country having some reasonable army, UK, leaves, there is a good possibility that Putin comes to (at least a part of) Europe to save the people with his tanks from the western decadence. Very dangerous. Most people here who talk about Russia with their "clever" one-liner zingers clearly have about as much knowledge about how things actually work in Russia as Yahoo News comment section trolls. I think that the Western propaganda channels have done a good enough job of demonizing him that that starts to seem acceptable. In case there are any people here who actually want some information, here's a tidbit that might be worth something. Putin definitely looks pretty bizarre by Western standards, in large part because he inherited one of the shittiest economic collapses possible, and has to deal with a rather corrupt system. Obviously he is not without fault, as he was a member of the corrupt elite that inherited the nation's wealth after 1991, but he stopped the economic raids of the 90s and coalesced those who inherited a lot into the new wealthy elite. Probably the best outcome given that those new billionaires were generally those who knew how to run the industry they acquired. And there's been quite a lot of successful anti-corruption measures in Russia over his tenure, especially starting about 5 years ago. Voting is of course problematic but his approval ratings (generally between 60% and 80%, though they've been much lower than that before) and electoral support are genuine. Most of the dislike for him, however, comes from the fact that Russian leaders, including Putin, have a tendency to be willing to oppose NATO interests, with force if necessary. It's been interesting to see how Western media oscillates between portraying him as a pragmatic leader and the next Hitler, depending on whether or not US and Russian FP interests align. Generally you can expect Russian action in some US sphere of influence to be followed by a propaganda blitz all over the US-allied world. It is nice to see that you read some encyclopedic information. At the same time, unfortunately, you have not the slightest idea about Russia. Since you said it then clearly he does not. Well, he does not. I have twenty years of practical experience living under different Russian leaders, I am used to their mentality and Putin has all the signs of the previous Russian leaders, only in a capitalist / corrupt system. I see the activities of Russian KGB employees in my country and western countries and I see their propaganda in social media and in discussions every day. On the other hand, I read opinions of Russians, who escaped the country and are now writing critically about Putin and his mafia of friends. And it all forms a perfect picture. And then, some kid writes in some discussion, that Putin is actually a good guy with lots of success and anyone, who thinks something else, is infected by the "western / NATO general media". Trust me, I do not need some "western / NATO general media" to know what I see in the case of Putin. I can just pity this kid about his ignorance. I can offer anecdotal evidence to the contrary, that Russia and the Warsaw nations were not that bad to live in (generally I saw a lot more people who convinced themselves that that they were oppressed while living under conditions as good as those in Russia itself, which were worse than those in the West but still quite decent). In fact, I'd generally be willing to discuss the issue in more depth, as there were clearly both strengths and weaknesses in the USSR/Warsaw governments and in Putin's current government. However, it seems that instead you're interested in posting dismissive one-liners, complaining about how no one but you knows how things work, and claiming that only "some kid" would dare to say anything good (more like qualified support than straight praise, really) about Putin. Given that, and that this is a UK thread and it's going off topic, there's no point in going further on this. On the original point, about UK/Russia: this is very unlikely to change anything. UK and Russia are not and never have been strategically close, and it's Germany, France, and East Europe that Russia is more likely to have closer ties with in case of future political realignments. If anything, Russia's biggest interest in this would be to stick it to the EU.
Sorry - the first paragraph = you have absolutely no idea. I would be banned if I continued. End of discussion. UK thread.
|
On June 25 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 07:20 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 25 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 07:01 Deleuze wrote:On June 25 2016 06:58 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 06:54 FlaShFTW wrote:On June 24 2016 17:28 hfglgg wrote:On June 24 2016 17:26 FlaShFTW wrote:On June 24 2016 17:21 Lebesgue wrote:On June 24 2016 17:07 Linear wrote:
[quote]
As a young person I don't give a flying fuck about the politics of the matter I only care what makes sound fiscal sense leaving the EU doesn't make any sense it that regard so it's a bad idea. Pretty simple concept to grasp. Spot on. What a f***ing mess this is. And that's why referendums with 50% thresholds are useless. A higher margin should be required for such a momentous decisions... because thats literally how a democracy works. majority wins. it doesnt. Democracy: control of an organization or group by the majority of its members. >50% = majority. Democracy how again? Um....here in the US we require a two thirds majority to pull shit of this level. We do not allow tyranny of the majority to, say for instance, create new states or amend the constitution. There's a petition to this effect that no-one noticed until this morning I love all the people who are experts on how democracy works and don’t understand the basic concept of tyranny of the majority and that is destroys unions. But hey, you got 1% more than the other side, I guess that is a mandate for this crazy thing that will alter the very fabric of the nation. The vote is over and its done, but whoever said it could be 50% to be valid an idiot. I don't think it's an issue of the dangers of tyranny of the majority (there's no clear majority attempting to oppress a minority). It's an issue of the dangers of making large changes based on a majority that can change with the winds (like you said, for countries with written constitutions status quo is generally stronger than a simple majority when trying to change it). In this case you have 16 million being told having their lives altered and rights they previously enjoyed voided by 17 million. I'm not going to say that its oppression, but I doubt it is going to be fun. Or that the 16 million people are going be passive about their unhappiness once they catch their breath. As mandates go, its pretty weak for the level of change it is imposing on the losing side.
The gross population of the UK is 65m. It's a lot of people to have their lives altered by 17m
|
On June 25 2016 07:39 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 07:20 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 25 2016 07:05 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 07:01 Deleuze wrote:On June 25 2016 06:58 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2016 06:54 FlaShFTW wrote:On June 24 2016 17:28 hfglgg wrote:On June 24 2016 17:26 FlaShFTW wrote:On June 24 2016 17:21 Lebesgue wrote:
[quote]
Spot on.
What a f***ing mess this is. And that's why referendums with 50% thresholds are useless. A higher margin should be required for such a momentous decisions...
because thats literally how a democracy works. majority wins. it doesnt. Democracy: control of an organization or group by the majority of its members. >50% = majority. Democracy how again? Um....here in the US we require a two thirds majority to pull shit of this level. We do not allow tyranny of the majority to, say for instance, create new states or amend the constitution. There's a petition to this effect that no-one noticed until this morning I love all the people who are experts on how democracy works and don’t understand the basic concept of tyranny of the majority and that is destroys unions. But hey, you got 1% more than the other side, I guess that is a mandate for this crazy thing that will alter the very fabric of the nation. The vote is over and its done, but whoever said it could be 50% to be valid an idiot. I don't think it's an issue of the dangers of tyranny of the majority (there's no clear majority attempting to oppress a minority). It's an issue of the dangers of making large changes based on a majority that can change with the winds (like you said, for countries with written constitutions status quo is generally stronger than a simple majority when trying to change it). In this case you have 16 million being told having their lives altered and rights they previously enjoyed voided by 17 million. I'm not going to say that its oppression, but I doubt it is going to be fun. Or that the 16 million people are going be passive about their unhappiness once they catch their breath. As mandates go, its pretty weak for the level of change it is imposing on the losing side. The gross population of the UK is 65m. It's a lot of people to have their lives altered by 17m
In the US, we have 9 (well, 8 now) people that we never elected affect our lives in numerous ways every day
|
On June 25 2016 07:14 jello_biafra wrote:
I don't for a second buy that Scotland or NI will have a referendum, honestly.
NS was about the only party leader that showed any sort of leadership today. Her speech was prepared, to the point and entirely inclusive. The way I read it she's doing to the EU to get back in without a referendum, if that fails Parliament then a referendum.
I'm pretty sure I'll be going to Spain without a Visa for the foreseeable future. This wasn't even mentioned but lets call it an ace up the sleeve: http://www.europeanfutures.ed.ac.uk/article-1826
|
On June 25 2016 07:26 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 07:23 Diabolique wrote:
But I take from this whole discussion one very good point, so thanks to the one, who brought it here:
It is stupid to let to decide about this kind of event by a 50% majority. Primarily, when it ends at the end 51.9%:48.1%. It is a valid opinion, but should not cause such a serious action, as that will be against the will of 48%. It was Cameron's mistake, that he just expected, it would be a walkover, and let there the 50%. Yep. It's the stupidest thing. Really. I mean. Christ. Its got to be the most epic political fail in history.
Instead of going into the books as one of the greatest Tory leaders leading them to 3 election vinctories (which was certainly.possible with Corbyn as labour leader) he's the one who made the UK leave the EU and potentially the one who causes Scotland to leave the UK. Not the legacy he envisioned I imagine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
