Haven't read through the thread so it's probably been discussed already, but one thing is very clear - Westerners have had it with mass immigration and the emotional blackmail that goes with it being forced on them (NB - this is NOT my personal viewpoint). Call them racist, intolerant throwbacks, but it's simply human nature, and if you're not willing to quit your country over it then you're going to have to learn to live with it. No societies in human history have been able to absorb the level of immigration from often extremely different cultures that the West has since WW2 without some kind of upheaval occurring in reaction to it. 'Moderate' politicians all over Europe will be taking note and adjusting their programs accordingly.
Trump and Brexit: What has happened to the world?
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
That's putting it a bit strongly isn't it? All black and white; one view or the opposite, talk of quitting countries - very few will do that. These results simply do not mean that the whole of either the US or the UK is suddenly anti-establishment or anti-immigration. Leave won marginally. More people will have voted for Clinton than Trump, despite it obviously being harder representing the incumbent over a long period of real terms recession.
Glad you support Free Speech
Just to clue in the 'progressive' folks here: removing the vote from old people is ageist discrimination. I suppose you consider yourselves liberal, but only when it suits you.
Prejudice is more acceptable in 2016 than in the 50s/60s? Riiiiiight. You're a good loyal servant of the established order, Paul, but that ivory tower of yours must have an obstructed view. We have protections in place now than ever before, and our societies and life experience more open than ever. The biggest factor here is financial circumstances and the pace of change.
Prejudice is more acceptable in 2016 than in the 50s/60s? Riiiiiight. You're a good loyal servant of the established order, Paul, but that ivory tower of yours must have an obstructed view. We have protections in place now than ever before, and our societies and life experience more open than ever. The biggest factor here is financial circumstances and the pace of change.
Top GOP guy outlines this strategy in the 80s:
And they stick to it in 2016:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics...out-how-few-black-people-were-able-vote-early
https://thinkprogress.org/breaking-...-a-racial-gerrymander-1de42efeb2db#.m2o1gxogg
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-northcarolina-insight-idUSKBN12Y0ZY
But even with the potential for intimidation at the polls, by far the greatest challenge to this year’s election will come from state and local governments themselves. The widespread, unfounded talk of election fraud pushed by Trump has been “a distraction from the real problems that voters face in communities around the country,” Clarke said. “There are voters in certain communities that are particularly vulnerable this election cycle in the wake of the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.”
This election marks the first presidential race since the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down a provision of the Voting Rights Act that required nine states and several jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to secure federal approval before changing election laws and procedures.
That decision was followed by a rash of measures across the country — some proposed within hours of the court’s ruling — restricting voting access for the minority voters the Voting Rights Act was originally intended to protect. Many of those measures have been challenged in court, some successfully, but uncertainty over the new election rules has left voters confused and voting rights advocates scrambling to litigate every new attempt at restrictions.
At least 14 states have new restrictions in place this year, including voter ID laws, changes in registration requirements, and cuts to early voting options. In Maricopa County, the largest county in Arizona, officials closed 70 percent of the polling sites, causing long delays during the primaries and prompting a DOJ investigation. In Florida and Ohio, officials tried to purge thousands of mostly black voters from their rolls. As The Intercept has reported, Missouri legislators even proposed changing the state’s constitution — which unlike the federal one includes an affirmative right to vote — in an effort to pass stricter voter ID laws. The proposed amendment will be on the ballot on November 8. The NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund maintains a regularly updated tally of voter suppression efforts that is more than 100 pages long.
Not incidentally, the states that in recent years have been most adamant about restricting access to the polls are those that were previously covered by the Voting Rights Act’s federal oversight, as well as those seeing the growing political participation of minorities. According to research compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice, of the 11 states with the highest African-American turnout in 2008, six have new restrictions in place, and of the 12 states with the largest Hispanic population growth between 2000 and 2010, seven passed laws making it harder to vote.
In light of the Shelby County decision, the DOJ has significantly scaled backits election monitoring. In 2012, the agency’s observers monitored elections in 13 states. This year, they will be inside polls in only four states, only one of which, Louisiana, is in the South, where historically the federal government exercised broad oversight over voting rights.
This election marks the first presidential race since the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down a provision of the Voting Rights Act that required nine states and several jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to secure federal approval before changing election laws and procedures.
That decision was followed by a rash of measures across the country — some proposed within hours of the court’s ruling — restricting voting access for the minority voters the Voting Rights Act was originally intended to protect. Many of those measures have been challenged in court, some successfully, but uncertainty over the new election rules has left voters confused and voting rights advocates scrambling to litigate every new attempt at restrictions.
At least 14 states have new restrictions in place this year, including voter ID laws, changes in registration requirements, and cuts to early voting options. In Maricopa County, the largest county in Arizona, officials closed 70 percent of the polling sites, causing long delays during the primaries and prompting a DOJ investigation. In Florida and Ohio, officials tried to purge thousands of mostly black voters from their rolls. As The Intercept has reported, Missouri legislators even proposed changing the state’s constitution — which unlike the federal one includes an affirmative right to vote — in an effort to pass stricter voter ID laws. The proposed amendment will be on the ballot on November 8. The NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund maintains a regularly updated tally of voter suppression efforts that is more than 100 pages long.
Not incidentally, the states that in recent years have been most adamant about restricting access to the polls are those that were previously covered by the Voting Rights Act’s federal oversight, as well as those seeing the growing political participation of minorities. According to research compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice, of the 11 states with the highest African-American turnout in 2008, six have new restrictions in place, and of the 12 states with the largest Hispanic population growth between 2000 and 2010, seven passed laws making it harder to vote.
In light of the Shelby County decision, the DOJ has significantly scaled backits election monitoring. In 2012, the agency’s observers monitored elections in 13 states. This year, they will be inside polls in only four states, only one of which, Louisiana, is in the South, where historically the federal government exercised broad oversight over voting rights.
Fair enough, put in "a significant, growing, and increasingly influential proportion of" before "Westerners".
You actually think people would voice opinions like those you see in the Right Wing Rags inthe 1950s/60s - you would know I suppose.
I am no capitalist. Stating that, if I have to choose between someone who lives inside the business lobby pocket and someone who lives inside the pockets of those who makes regularly make my trip to work horrible despite being paid more then most of us can imagine, well, I'll choose the former. At least they bring food on my table
Will it ever reach a point where people in countries where there is such a right wing and left wing divide and where the opinions are so diametrically opposed that we could a) start seeing civil war again b) emigration across regions within countries and a clear geographical divide along political lines.. could it get to the point where we find each other intolerable to live with.
Although I happen to agree with you aren't you now attempting to shut down debate by calling people ageist despite whinging in the past about people trying to shut down debate by calling others racist?
With regard to both sexuality and race, the Britain of 2016 is a far better place to live. I can't believe this is even up for debate.
Religion is a more complex dynamic, however, with certain prejudices having increased in recent years, and between multiple communities.
Free speech for young people
Anyone has a youtube news live stream?
I referenced this article a little earlier.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...more-conservative-with-age-young-old-politics
I have said previously that large scale immigration opens up a whole load of societal problems and isn't necessarily a good idea. I think there is a lot in the view that the scale of immigration we have seen in recent years and conflict with Islam has made the older generation want to batten down the hatches.
I think the idea is that conservatism will 'die out' is wishful thinking too.
Am I imagining, or did people talked much less about politics 15 years ago? Now everybody has an opinion and every news cycle is at least 50% politics.
If by talk you mean type endless shit on the internet then no they didn't.
Let's try some statements
- Americans are murderous scumbags, and should be banned from entering my country. Though some of them I assume are good people.
- Jews love hoarding money, it's in their genes.
- Christians bear the primary responsibility for destroying the planet's ecosystems.
- All Germans should have some identifying mark so that they can be easily identified as a security risk.
Ah the Caf, everyone is an armchair political expert (yet called both elections wrong) and so far left it's hilarious, "everyone must be stupid, bigoted, racist, old, young, millennial" and on and on.
The far left is as bad as the far right, the inability of the left to understand the concerns of the right make them just as bad. Throwing around names, accusations and calling democracy out won't solve anything and actually encourages the opposite (often dangerous voting whereby far right parties gain advantages through no effort of their own). Until the left can acknowledge and work towards alleviating the concerns of right wing voters or vice versa, harmony will never be existent. There are genuine concerns on both sides which are far more complex than the likes of you or I to fathom, the political pulse in action isn't as black and white as we make out.
Interesting read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/b...prod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share
The far left is as bad as the far right, the inability of the left to understand the concerns of the right make them just as bad. Throwing around names, accusations and calling democracy out won't solve anything and actually encourages the opposite (often dangerous voting whereby far right parties gain advantages through no effort of their own). Until the left can acknowledge and work towards alleviating the concerns of right wing voters or vice versa, harmony will never be existent. There are genuine concerns on both sides which are far more complex than the likes of you or I to fathom, the political pulse in action isn't as black and white as we make out.
Interesting read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/b...prod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share
Last edited:
People have always talked about politics simply because despite what many might say it has a massive impact on everyday life.
One big difference to 15 years ago is obviously that we now have the internet. Different access to news, different ways to talk about it too.
You have to thanks the internet for that.
20 years ago, you only had the Radio, Newspapers and TV News (all controlled by the same small group of people) to inform yourself, and the fact you cant answer to the TV or Newspaper, was forcing you pretty much to absorb their info, but no way to redirect that info or discuss that info.
Now, you see anything in TV and you can challenge it on forums, social media, even some newspapers has a comment section going on.
Spread and discussion of information can only be a good thing.
Yeah, but also in everyday life. Politicians weren't celebrities, people didn't care that much, with the exception of the election cycle. It's kind of shameful not to have a strong opinion now. It didn't feel like that back then. Not just about politics, but social causes of all kinds.
I don't know, just thinking out loud.
I am not trying to shut down debate, just pointing out the hypocrisy of such stance. You can claim to be liberal, if you seriously believe that older voters should be disenfranchised due to their age and politics. I am a millennial myself, and i live in London, so it's not as my experiences are very different from many young Remainers.
The hypocrisy shown in this thread is staggering to say the least.
It is. As is not allowing children to vote.
There are indeed two sides and the caf is certainly guilty of having a very liberal bias.
However, the fact remains that Trump ran on an openly racist platform. The fact also remains that his attitude towards women has proven to be pretty awful given his comments about their looks and the repeated allegations against him.
Those issues aren't complex, they're black and white. Which is why this election is different to, say, Mitt Romney's run where a qualified candidate was no doubt pilloried on the caf for being a right-wing candidate.
This isn't even about left vs right given that many of the most powerful Republicans also had issues with Trump's campaign.
But that's the caf for you, going on from past discussions this was always going to happen, rather than understand issues and concerns it's always name calling.
Suffrages are already discriminatory so discussing about who should be discriminated isn't a sign of hypocrisy. Just an ethical conversation.
I agree entirely I mean what a choice... the choice they had was to either to vote for the worst president or the worst president... I take that back there have been plenty of bad ones but these two were given the opportunity to see if they could be worse.
If anything this just compounds the opinion (which I hold myself) that the position of president is just for puppets and it does not matter who gets in. They will all toe the line given them by the deep state and whoever runs them.
Actually read an article some years ago that talked about how in the US you are seeing an increase in communities that are less politically diverse. That there is some evidence people are taking into account the political leanings of the areas they choose to move to or decide not to move to.
What of males under 25 and their 'underdeveloped brains' that supposedly make them more impulsive, should they get the vote?
*Cough* Patriots *Cough*
Depends on how the conversation is framed. If it comes down to "Group X should not be allowed to vote because they did not vote with my side" well that's a different issue from a discussion of who in general is best qualified to vote.
I think we all know about things like literacy tests, etc which were just not so carefully disguised attempts at voter suppression in the name of making sure people who voted were qualified to make an informed decision.
Depends on where we wish the threshold to be, if we're going to be remotely scientific about it.
Obviously men under 25 are less able to make informed decisions than those older. Obviously people over 80 are less able to do the same.
You are laughing but it's a very good question, it seems that the 18-25 aren't interested into actually going to the polls, they just discuss about it on social medias, that immaturity should forbid them from voting until 26.
So I propose that only the population of citizens(not just nationals) that are between 26 and 55 years old should be able to vote.
As I say, I agree with your point. Just not sure you are the best placed person to make it given your previous attitude to people throwing around 'isms' when they don't like the debate that is being had.
But you can have the discussion, that's my point. Now in our case like you said, it's just people being hurt by a vote they don't support so the conversation doesn't start well.