|
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 January 02 2020 04:40 Jockmcplop wrote:
Danglars I never accused you of ideological concerns in regards to this, I just disagree that votes should be weighted depending on how much space there is per person On January 01 2020 11:10 Simberto wrote:
That is a nice way of saying "Some peoples votes (specifically those of people who tend to vote for stuff i like) should count for more than those of others (who vote for stuff i don't like)" On January 01 2020 19:17 Jockmcplop wrote:
I read danglars' comments the same way simberto does.
Would you agree that "people who tend to vote for stuff i like" is part of "ideological concerns?" I want to be sure I'm hearing what you're saying correctly.
Let's take this to the logical extreme.
Its the UK in 2090, and every single person in the country lives in 5 mega cities, except 1 guy. How much power do you give that guy? How much is his vote worth compared to everyone else?
The other thing that i think is wrong about this is that it kind of assumes that government has no role in deciding which concerns to prioritize.
For example, I can definitely see a situation where people living in cities would pressure the government to enact policy that would directly hurt farming (For example). The government's job is to say no in this case, not to change what a vote means.
Honestly it doesn't read to me like ideology, more like people in rural areas being special snowflakes and crying because everyone else decided to go to the city. Its a US thing much, much more than a UK thing. There isn't enough space in the UK between where our rural areas are and where our cities are that it separates people like I imagine it does in the US.
The UK has something similar, but its more like London vs everyone else instead of rural vs city.
Your hypothetical is a bit extreme, but I'll bite. You give that guy more than 0.000001% of a share in governance if the population in cities number 10 million. After all, he's the only one actually living and working in 90% of the country's landmass (if we were to make a very generous estimate of the area a mega city covers).
I was careful in my last posts to make clear that there can be too much small town representation. The tax output of major economic centers cannot be majority decided by people living far from them. I don't really see myself in conflict with you on that score.
It doesn't even have to be policies that "hurt farming." It could just be overlooked social groups that want a voice after 50% of their town is inhabited by foreign-born immigrants. Would London be amenable to slowing down that change over 10 or 20 more years, for steady acculturation and assimilation? They might never have thought about that issue, falsely assuming any local concerns must be inspired by base racism and should be ignored on moral grounds. It's not harming anyone per se, it's just making people wonder how they can petition their government and make their voices heard on issues particularly affecting less metropolitan/international cities.
The base case is that people clustered geographically together in dense cities won't always have a clue about what's happening far from them. That can be London vs everywhere else, certainly.
Honestly it doesn't read to me like ideology, more like people in rural areas being special snowflakes and crying because everyone else decided to go to the city. I confess a certain sympathy with people that think those living in cities are elites that think less of people allegedly less enlightened and economically less productive. It's sort of the flip side to rural people are crying about losing out//city people are elitist assholes class antagonism. The fight between the two flippant over-generalization is greatly counterproductive. Big city dwellers are angered because they feel they actually are giving rural people their due, small town people are angered that their concerns are lumped into pathetic snowflakes reaction or whinging. I think you can recognize this. I don't afford you a more accurate viewpoint than their (hypothetical for me) counter-viewpoint.
The only outlets I see for major population centers wanted a greater proportion of power than they already have is dividing up the country so city dwellers can really have and use population proportional power, devolving most power and money of the current parliament to local assemblies, or leaving the current system in place and grumbling about it in pubs. I'll repeat one more time that I think the most current election shows the current system can deliver clear political direction on contentious topics, and force politicians to campaign in areas they'd rather neglect in order to focus on more dense population centers to ramp up their overall popular vote.
|
On January 02 2020 06:33 Danglars wrote:
It doesn't even have to be policies that "hurt farming." It could just be overlooked social groups that want a voice after 50% of their town is inhabited by foreign-born immigrants.
Disproportionate voting power doesn't fix this issue, it just arbitrarily chooses some but not all of the smaller groups to pay attention to. Which is all well and good as long as those are the groups you personally have sympathy for.
I'll repeat one more time that I think the most current election shows the current system can deliver clear political direction on contentious topics, and force politicians to campaign in areas they'd rather neglect in order to focus on more dense population centers to ramp up their overall popular vote.
"Clear political direction on contentious topics" is all well and good as long as the directions being produced are ones you personally like. When they're not and especially when preference for those directions is not shared by a large proportion of the population, it's a pretty dubious virtue.
Even if we grant it as a virtue, an electoral system providing such a thing sometimes and having messy failure conditions at other times doesn't seem like a substantial endorsement of that system either.
|
On January 02 2020 08:19 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2020 06:33 Danglars wrote:
It doesn't even have to be policies that "hurt farming." It could just be overlooked social groups that want a voice after 50% of their town is inhabited by foreign-born immigrants. Disproportionate voting power doesn't fix this issue, it just arbitrarily chooses some but not all of the smaller groups to pay attention to. Which is all well and good as long as those are the groups you personally have sympathy for. Show nested quote +I'll repeat one more time that I think the most current election shows the current system can deliver clear political direction on contentious topics, and force politicians to campaign in areas they'd rather neglect in order to focus on more dense population centers to ramp up their overall popular vote. "Clear political direction on contentious topics" is all well and good as long as the directions being produced are ones you personally like. When they're not and especially when preference for those directions is not shared by a large proportion of the population, it's a pretty dubious virtue. Even if we grant it as a virtue, an electoral system providing such a thing sometimes and having messy failure conditions at other times doesn't seem like a substantial endorsement of that system either.
Whatever gave the impression that I was arguing that all smaller groups consternations are fixed by regional power sharing of the kind I described? I haven’t a clue. Secondly, and for maybe the third time, I’ll repeat that it doesn’t matter if I like the resulting policies. I have very little invested in whether small town UK agrees with my favored political ideas.
|
On January 02 2020 09:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2020 08:19 Aquanim wrote:On January 02 2020 06:33 Danglars wrote:
It doesn't even have to be policies that "hurt farming." It could just be overlooked social groups that want a voice after 50% of their town is inhabited by foreign-born immigrants. Disproportionate voting power doesn't fix this issue, it just arbitrarily chooses some but not all of the smaller groups to pay attention to. Which is all well and good as long as those are the groups you personally have sympathy for. I'll repeat one more time that I think the most current election shows the current system can deliver clear political direction on contentious topics, and force politicians to campaign in areas they'd rather neglect in order to focus on more dense population centers to ramp up their overall popular vote. "Clear political direction on contentious topics" is all well and good as long as the directions being produced are ones you personally like. When they're not and especially when preference for those directions is not shared by a large proportion of the population, it's a pretty dubious virtue. Even if we grant it as a virtue, an electoral system providing such a thing sometimes and having messy failure conditions at other times doesn't seem like a substantial endorsement of that system either. Whatever gave the impression that I was arguing that all smaller groups consternations are fixed by regional power sharing of the kind I described? I haven’t a clue.
If you're explicitly acknowledging that you're picking and choosing specific smaller groups to emphasise the opinions of, then fine. (The example you've picked is pretty illustrative, too.)
Secondly, and for maybe the third time, I’ll repeat that it doesn’t matter if I like the resulting policies. I have very little invested in whether small town UK agrees with my favored political ideas.
Repeating it doesn't change the fact that your political opinions are baked into your argument in such a fundamental way that your protestations can't remove it.
|
On January 02 2020 10:34 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2020 09:47 Danglars wrote:On January 02 2020 08:19 Aquanim wrote:On January 02 2020 06:33 Danglars wrote:
It doesn't even have to be policies that "hurt farming." It could just be overlooked social groups that want a voice after 50% of their town is inhabited by foreign-born immigrants. Disproportionate voting power doesn't fix this issue, it just arbitrarily chooses some but not all of the smaller groups to pay attention to. Which is all well and good as long as those are the groups you personally have sympathy for. I'll repeat one more time that I think the most current election shows the current system can deliver clear political direction on contentious topics, and force politicians to campaign in areas they'd rather neglect in order to focus on more dense population centers to ramp up their overall popular vote. "Clear political direction on contentious topics" is all well and good as long as the directions being produced are ones you personally like. When they're not and especially when preference for those directions is not shared by a large proportion of the population, it's a pretty dubious virtue. Even if we grant it as a virtue, an electoral system providing such a thing sometimes and having messy failure conditions at other times doesn't seem like a substantial endorsement of that system either. Whatever gave the impression that I was arguing that all smaller groups consternations are fixed by regional power sharing of the kind I described? I haven’t a clue. If you're explicitly acknowledging that you're picking and choosing specific smaller groups to emphasise the opinions of, then fine. (The example you've picked is pretty illustrative, too.) Show nested quote +Secondly, and for maybe the third time, I’ll repeat that it doesn’t matter if I like the resulting policies. I have very little invested in whether small town UK agrees with my favored political ideas. Repeating it doesn't change the fact that your political opinions are baked into your argument in such a fundamental way that your protestations can't remove it.
I’m arguing regarding relevant parties on this topic. Maybe in the future, closer concerns to you will come up and you can go to town on it. More power to you in that regard.
Now on to your psychic claims. You know, you just got this oracle that will tell you it’s secretly political considerations that give rise to my opinions on electoral system. I wish you well with your religion. Just please confine yourself to arguing the subject and reasons presented, instead of clairvoyant results. Join your friends that think cultural opinions can be boiled down to personal sexual frustrations, it’s good company I’m sure.
User was warned for this post.
|
On January 02 2020 11:18 Danglars wrote:...
Now on to your psychic claims. You know, you just got this oracle that will tell you it’s secretly political considerations that give rise to my opinions on electoral system. I wish you well with your religion. Just please confine yourself to arguing the subject and reasons presented, instead of clairvoyant results.
Your arguments and objectives simply don't make sense without taking political considerations into account. I don't have to be a psychic to see that. The fact that you choose to either not see it or not acknowledge it is your business.
Join your friends that think cultural opinions can be boiled down to personal sexual frustrations, it’s good company I’m sure.
A truly vintage Danglars post. Remarkable.
|
On January 02 2020 11:52 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2020 11:18 Danglars wrote:...
Now on to your psychic claims. You know, you just got this oracle that will tell you it’s secretly political considerations that give rise to my opinions on electoral system. I wish you well with your religion. Just please confine yourself to arguing the subject and reasons presented, instead of clairvoyant results. Your arguments and objectives simply don't make sense without taking political considerations into account. I don't have to be a psychic to see that. The fact that you choose to either not see it or not acknowledge it is your business. Show nested quote +Join your friends that think cultural opinions can be boiled down to personal sexual frustrations, it’s good company I’m sure. A truly vintage Danglars post. Remarkable.
If you would clearly state the problems following my logic, then we might proceed to argue on how power is split in a country. I can't help you if you continue to rely on your own premonitions. You might not like your bedfellows in those presumptions, but nevertheless they're your brethren.
|
On January 02 2020 12:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2020 11:52 Aquanim wrote:On January 02 2020 11:18 Danglars wrote:...
Now on to your psychic claims. You know, you just got this oracle that will tell you it’s secretly political considerations that give rise to my opinions on electoral system. I wish you well with your religion. Just please confine yourself to arguing the subject and reasons presented, instead of clairvoyant results. Your arguments and objectives simply don't make sense without taking political considerations into account. I don't have to be a psychic to see that. The fact that you choose to either not see it or not acknowledge it is your business. Join your friends that think cultural opinions can be boiled down to personal sexual frustrations, it’s good company I’m sure. A truly vintage Danglars post. Remarkable. If you would clearly state the problems following my logic, then we might proceed to argue on how power is split in a country.
I tried that once already and got no better answer from you than "nuh-uh". I think I'll leave you to your left-field ad hominems rather than have the same conversation a second time.
|
they day you'll make republicans see contexts is the day we'll come out of the dark age.
|
On January 02 2020 09:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2020 08:19 Aquanim wrote:On January 02 2020 06:33 Danglars wrote:
It doesn't even have to be policies that "hurt farming." It could just be overlooked social groups that want a voice after 50% of their town is inhabited by foreign-born immigrants. Disproportionate voting power doesn't fix this issue, it just arbitrarily chooses some but not all of the smaller groups to pay attention to. Which is all well and good as long as those are the groups you personally have sympathy for. I'll repeat one more time that I think the most current election shows the current system can deliver clear political direction on contentious topics, and force politicians to campaign in areas they'd rather neglect in order to focus on more dense population centers to ramp up their overall popular vote. "Clear political direction on contentious topics" is all well and good as long as the directions being produced are ones you personally like. When they're not and especially when preference for those directions is not shared by a large proportion of the population, it's a pretty dubious virtue. Even if we grant it as a virtue, an electoral system providing such a thing sometimes and having messy failure conditions at other times doesn't seem like a substantial endorsement of that system either. Whatever gave the impression that I was arguing that all smaller groups consternations are fixed by regional power sharing of the kind I described? No, it's clear that you favour one smaller group of people over another, which is exactly why people are giving examples of other smaller groups of people, that you admit to not care not to give greater representation to. That is exactly the point.You don't care about smaller groups, you only care about one specific smaller group to give privileges to.
|
On January 03 2020 03:33 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2020 09:47 Danglars wrote:On January 02 2020 08:19 Aquanim wrote:On January 02 2020 06:33 Danglars wrote:
It doesn't even have to be policies that "hurt farming." It could just be overlooked social groups that want a voice after 50% of their town is inhabited by foreign-born immigrants. Disproportionate voting power doesn't fix this issue, it just arbitrarily chooses some but not all of the smaller groups to pay attention to. Which is all well and good as long as those are the groups you personally have sympathy for. I'll repeat one more time that I think the most current election shows the current system can deliver clear political direction on contentious topics, and force politicians to campaign in areas they'd rather neglect in order to focus on more dense population centers to ramp up their overall popular vote. "Clear political direction on contentious topics" is all well and good as long as the directions being produced are ones you personally like. When they're not and especially when preference for those directions is not shared by a large proportion of the population, it's a pretty dubious virtue. Even if we grant it as a virtue, an electoral system providing such a thing sometimes and having messy failure conditions at other times doesn't seem like a substantial endorsement of that system either. Whatever gave the impression that I was arguing that all smaller groups consternations are fixed by regional power sharing of the kind I described? No, it's clear that you favour one smaller group of people over another, which is exactly why people are giving examples of other smaller groups of people, that you admit to not care not to give greater representation to. That is exactly the point.You don't care about smaller groups, you only care about one specific smaller group to give privileges to.
Bring up these other smaller groups in an informative and engaging way with your first thoughts about addressing it. I don't welcome the laziness that comes from deflecting to other topics when you lack informed rebuttals on the current topic. Do we really need a fourth DMCD post psychoanalyzing and attacking the man and not his argument ("sctick" "culture war" "he inserted his American-centric" "it's clear that you favour")? I put the same to Aquanim: merely pointing out there exist other groups with unaddressed causes of grief does nothing at all for this group and this relief. Culturally, introducing presumption of political bias is evidence of a lack of serious argument.
|
The serious argument is pretty simple. In a democracy, every vote should be of equal weight. That is the basic core principle.
Everything else is simply pointing out why it is weird that specifically the group of rural voters should have more weight to their vote, and that it is strange that you do not have the same concern for other groups who might not vote like you would like them to.
For example, one could easily count LGBT votes double, to help them with their continued problems of representation. Or the votes of black voters.
But these clearly sound absurd. Yet counting the votes of rural voters double, and slightly hiding that behind the voting system is completely reasonable to you. And once people realize this weirdness of your stance, they begin to think about why you might have that stance. And considering your tendency to always take the right-wing stance on any possible issue no matter the situation or circumstances, and to completely turn your stance by 180° on very similar issues when the tables are turned, it is very easy to come to the conclusion that maybe the reason that you want rural voters to have more representation is because they vote the way you prefer, and that you do not have the same position regarding groups who generally vote against the way you prefer.
|
On January 03 2020 06:02 Simberto wrote:
The serious argument is pretty simple. In a democracy, every vote should be of equal weight. That is the basic core principle.
Everything else is simply pointing out why it is weird that specifically the group of rural voters should have more weight to their vote, and that it is strange that you do not have the same concern for other groups who might not vote like you would like them to.
For example, one could easily count LGBT votes double, to help them with their continued problems of representation. Or the votes of black voters.
But these clearly sound absurd. Yet counting the votes of rural voters double, and slightly hiding that behind the voting system is completely reasonable to you. And once people realize this weirdness of your stance, they begin to think about why you might have that stance. And considering your tendency to always take the right-wing stance on any possible issue no matter the situation or circumstances, and to completely turn your stance by 180° on very similar issues when the tables are turned, it is very easy to come to the conclusion that maybe the reason that you want rural voters to have more representation is because they vote the way you prefer, and that you do not have the same position regarding groups who generally vote against the way you prefer.
I suppose it's therefore good that Western democracies are forms of representative democracies, the adjective changing the meaning of the word described. Universal suffrage, or everyone of majority possessing the right to vote, should be part of democracy. That's my big "should" closest to what you have said. Representative systems and the concerns of smaller groups of people should violate notions of "equal weight," since native equal weight gives rise to violent factionalism, populism, and infringements on liberty. The so-called pure democracies are the worst of this; every vote counts, and the mob instinct is capricious and given to many reverses of course and indulging passion instead of sense. Secondly, saying which and what constitutes "unequal weight" is a dog's breakfast of a task. Some people who hoped their representative would govern in a more fiscally responsible manner have cause to say their vote was not given enough weight, should he choose to greatly increase spending to fulfill his constituency's concerns. Conversely, people who wished their representative would react quickly to a changing public mood might have cause to say their vote was not properly weighted, if their representative chooses prudence and hesitation. The layer of representatives in and of itself makes accusations of not valuing "votes of equal weight" simply an exercise in opinion writing.
So we're basically at disagreement from the second sentence. I disagree with the should you put there. It is a very foolish thing to want constitutional monarchies with a parliamentary system, or representative republics, to become slaves to what someone thinks means equal weightings to votes. Equal votes within a constituency, for sure, since landowners should not be privileged by casting many more votes than lessees. Equal votes to rich and poor, all races, ages above some lower limit. However, no system where megalopolises dictate how things are gonna be by virtue of their population and reach (and the corresponding political campaigns focused in the geographically most dense regions to persuade more people quicker) will suitably govern an entire country. I see virtue in both single house legislatures tied to physical regions of the country and dual house system with one house being much more proportional to population. It's not enough to talk about simple fairness of rule, it's much better to talk about holding countries together so parties must focus their efforts into diverse localities. And neglecting that, as I'd argue Labour has recently done in working class areas most recently, should come to heavy party defeat.
Maybe Drone doesn't get enough hate for wanting mechanisms in place like Norway's, or even seeing value in them though disagreeing in part. He says Norway partially bases its calculation on the geographical size of the country. I'm not even suggesting actual land area should be part of the mechanism. But giving an Oslo/Finnmark ratio of 8.4:1 population a representative ratio of 3.8:1 is a wise principle. The population center gets an increased representation, as they should, but not so dominating of one to make the smaller virtually ignored in proportion. The perspective that every vote "should be of equal weight" in a democracy means Norway is no good democracy. (Then maybe our more partisan members call Drone secretly politically favoring the politics of Finnmark, and all five paragraphs do not matter to rebut because of that reason. All in good fun for that matter.) I disagree with the proportional voting part of Drone/Norway, but it's good to at least see people valuing both sides of the argument. As far as this debate goes, I see the biggest problem people have that are currently talking is giving rural areas non-proportional influence, rather than the FPTP vs PR.
In a hypothetically system with primarily devolved assemblies, I see less of a problem with proportional representation. The local assemblies vote on almost all major matters affecting them, and the national assembly has a minor role in things. It has its own problems with matters like supernational organizations and redistribution schemes, but it can sustain proportional voting well enough.
The good news is that voters in the UK rejected a change in the FPTP system in 2011, so democracy does prevail for now. Also, the conservative weight behind keeping a system that does give changing electoral outcomes (it works) favors no radical changes in the near future.
Lastly, I'm opposed to the SNP agenda that won a big vote and can't legitimately be called a movement of the cities. In the same way, the localities that recently swung Tory have had representatives for many decades basically opposed to my political ideas. The Johnson administration itself is anti-austerity and pro-big spending on climate change, which is also a departure from my beliefs. For these reasons and many more, I have no expectation that the electoral principles I hold to will yield political results I like. You just have to give up the presumption of guilt or presumption of bad faith if you want to have these debates. It's an absurd thing to bring into debate threads. I think everyone engaging in that style should confess to disfavoring reason and favoring realpolitik post-fact modes of discussion. If it's something good enough to respond to, it's good enough to show what's insufficient about the presented argument. Just ignore people or shitposters that you think operate in bad faith. It's nonsense to pull into the argument, then pull back out, and impute motive and evil intent. Additionally, my PMs are open if you think you can prove 180 degree switches of any consequence for bad motives, linking to posts and interactions in the past. I have great empathy for posters that hate seeing ten posts of mean-spirited aggression sidetracking from a debate they might be interested in, even if I feel compelled from time to time to point out their insufficiencies.
|
Coming from also federalistic Switzerland i find a pure "1 Person = 1 Vote" to also be a problematic way of structuring a country.
In Switzerland we have one chamber of goverment that gets seats depending on the population (seats get split up depending on how many votes a partiy/person has) and the second chamber that gets 2 representatives per canton (the 2 candidates with most votes get in, several rounds of voting are possible and often expected).
Furthermore, and this is probably the important part: If a referendum/initiative/vote is held it needs a majority of the population AND the cantons. Imho this is where, as an example, the US system is clearly worse. Having a president that the majority of the population didn't vote for, should just not be a thing.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On January 03 2020 18:49 Velr wrote:
Coming from also federalistic Switzerland i find a pure "1 Person = 1 Vote" to also be a problematic way of structuring a country.
In Switzerland we have one chamber of goverment that gets seats depending on the population (seats get split up depending on how many votes a partiy/person has) and the second chamber that gets 2 representatives per canton (the 2 candidates with most votes get in, several rounds of voting are possible and often expected).
Furthermore, and this is probably the important part: If a referendum/initiative/vote is held it needs a majority of the population AND the cantons. Imho this is where, as an example, the US system is clearly worse. Having a president that the majority of the population didn't vote for, should just not be a thing.
This is how basically every democracy in the world has solved this "problem". It may not be perfect but it's not like this is something recent or unadjusted for.
If anything the powerful presidency in the US is the anomaly which is why this is not even a question in most other democracies.
|
On January 03 2020 04:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 03:33 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 02 2020 09:47 Danglars wrote:On January 02 2020 08:19 Aquanim wrote:On January 02 2020 06:33 Danglars wrote:
It doesn't even have to be policies that "hurt farming." It could just be overlooked social groups that want a voice after 50% of their town is inhabited by foreign-born immigrants. Disproportionate voting power doesn't fix this issue, it just arbitrarily chooses some but not all of the smaller groups to pay attention to. Which is all well and good as long as those are the groups you personally have sympathy for. I'll repeat one more time that I think the most current election shows the current system can deliver clear political direction on contentious topics, and force politicians to campaign in areas they'd rather neglect in order to focus on more dense population centers to ramp up their overall popular vote. "Clear political direction on contentious topics" is all well and good as long as the directions being produced are ones you personally like. When they're not and especially when preference for those directions is not shared by a large proportion of the population, it's a pretty dubious virtue. Even if we grant it as a virtue, an electoral system providing such a thing sometimes and having messy failure conditions at other times doesn't seem like a substantial endorsement of that system either. Whatever gave the impression that I was arguing that all smaller groups consternations are fixed by regional power sharing of the kind I described? No, it's clear that you favour one smaller group of people over another, which is exactly why people are giving examples of other smaller groups of people, that you admit to not care not to give greater representation to. That is exactly the point.You don't care about smaller groups, you only care about one specific smaller group to give privileges to. Bring up these other smaller groups in an informative and engaging way with your first thoughts about addressing it. I don't welcome the laziness that comes from deflecting to other topics when you lack informed rebuttals on the current topic. Do we really need a fourth DMCD post psychoanalyzing and attacking the man and not his argument ("sctick" "culture war" "he inserted his American-centric" "it's clear that you favour")? I put the same to Aquanim: merely pointing out there exist other groups with unaddressed causes of grief does nothing at all for this group and this relief. Culturally, introducing presumption of political bias is evidence of a lack of serious argument. You have every person from the UK telling you that this isn't a thing. If you want to discuss American politics, go do it in the US thread.
|
Happy Brexit day to all people living in UK.
|
Nothing to be happy about.
|
Northern Ireland27066 Posts
On February 01 2020 22:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Happy Brexit day to all people living in UK.
Did you have a ‘post in the U.K. politics thread’ marked on your calendar?
|
On February 01 2020 22:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Happy Brexit day to all people living in UK.
Hey I said the same thing to my Belgian friends yesterday!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
