P.O.U.S.theWonderCat

Jenny1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > You can vote for a candidate without endorsing > > everything they do and say. > > > Absolutely agreed. But doesn't there come a point > when what someone does and says become so extreme > that alarm bells need to go off in your head, and > if they don't, there's something wrong? > > I also saw the story that Nigello notes about 'The > Klan' . Wouldn't people have been concerned about > voting for a candidate who played to this section > of the electorate? We're known by the company we > keep. I assume so for everyone, but I guess it depends on how much you believe the awful stuff and how much you mistrust the "other guy". Don't get me wrong, I finding the rise of xenophobia deeply alarming and, having experienced sexual harrassment in the workplace and watched far too many colleagues have the same, I personally find Trump scary. I just don't think it's helpful or accurate to impute views to all of his supporters based on what we think is logical. We're only going to get out of the mess Western society is crawling towards by avoiding tribalism and demonstrating a bit of empathy.

This isn't the type of view I was talking about, but I found this interesting: https://www.the-pool.com/news-views/opinion/2016/45/talking-to-my-cousin-who-voted-trump

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You can vote for a candidate without endorsing > > everything they do and say. > > Of course that's true. But you can't really vote > for a candidate without endorsing the central > tenants of their campaign. Why not? I don't think that viewpoint bears out against the reality of how some poeple vote.

I disagree. For some, they simply felt desperate and thought he was the lesser of two evils and the only chance for change. There have been a number of really interesting docos on this that really changed my assumptions. Saying that the voters had to accept his views is like saying that anyone who voted for Hillary accepts flouting of security policy and adultery. You can vote for a candidate without endorsing everything they do and say.

Whilst I agree that there are a sizeable chunk of people who voted for him because they agree with his vile views, I think it's simplistic to write off everyone as having voted for the same reason. For instance, there were a lot of extremely poor people who voted for him because the system is not working for them and they want change, and Hillary represented the social structures that they feel have kept them oppressed.

Quids, it's the responsiblity of both sides. Neither are listening to the other.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Trump didn't win this; Hillary lost it. > > Dear Lord ,EVERYTHING is Hillary's fault .She can > do no right . That's a ridiculous response. I'm not saying she's to blame for everything, I'm saying that antipathy towards her resulted in a lower Democrat turn-out. I get very tired of Hillary fans who can't accept ANY criticism of her.

I grasp that Louisa. I think some of the criticism of Hillary was deserved,and some of it was rooted in deep-seated biases. I have had an issue with her ever since she started taking an active role in the presidency when her husband was president as I believe in democracy. Trump didn't win this; Hillary lost it.

I know what you were referring to, but I'm highlighting that protesting - including requests for a new referendum - are not inconsistent with the constitution or democracy. It would have been political suicide to allow a second referendum, but given that it was advisory only and had such a low turn-out it certainly isn't anti-democratic. I find it interesting though that you don't acknowledge the blatantly unconstitutional actions of those trying to intimidate the judiciary though. Whether you are leave or remain or undecided, the independence of the judiciary is the lynchpin of our constitution and I'd have thought anyone who claims to care about democratic process would be more outraged by the Brexiteer response to the judgment.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > no, I'd agree with DF..... > > The voters who didn't get the result they wanted > are not accepting of it. That's pretty factual, > Sue What, you mean like the ignoramuses who are howling about the High Court judgment? Indeed, except that protesting about a democratic result is perfectly consistent with democracy and attempting to influence an independent judiciary is not.

The way your original post read I can see why PR interpreted that way. You've not indicated anything that shows that you might be contributing to the situation too, and specifically have asked if it is time to walk away.

That's right - the way to a woman's heart is to threaten them.

http://wrapuplondon.org.uk/

Actually, there are only a few circumstances where you need a written contract (e.g. conveyances of land). At law, a verbal contract is as valid as a written one (albeit that a written one is easier to evidence).

This is sobering.

Sanity, if they aren't collecting I'm acting as a collection point at work so can add yours to the pile. I'm generally around tomorrow if you wanted to drop it off - please PM me for details.

I wasn't in attendance in person, but my colleague was, and disagreed strongly with your characterisation of the apparent demeanour of Pannick. I agree that the SoS's position isn't necessarily sinister, but it also shows how many assumptions the government made about the legal position that they thought they could win even with giving it away as common ground. I think the government knew it would be poltically embarrassed by needing to refer to the ECJ as well.

Foxy, had the vote gone the other way, neither Parliament nor Government would have had to do anything, because no-one's rights would be changed. Interesting that you characterise Parliament's actions as "interfering": 1. Parliament still hasn't done anything; this action was brought by private citizens. 2. Parliament is the representative of the people. If you want to get rid of them "interfering", then why not move to Belarus or some other dictatorship? 3. Parliament was always going to have to be involved with making this happen legally. The only issue here is whether when they are involved. 4. Have you actually read the judgment?

On a positive note, this has made me decide to dust off my constitutional law and jurisprudence textbooks again. The evolution of the notion that law has its power because it came from a monarch anointed by God to this decision confirming the power resides in the representatives of the people is really fascinating.

Jay, I wondered if they'd try that stunt over the irrevocable point. The irony is however that the English Courts don't have jurisdiction to decide the point, so it will need to be referred to the ECJ. John, Tusk and Kerr can say what they like but they don't have authority (and Tusk has a vested interest in this happening sooner rather than later as the last thing the EU wants is for this to drag on too). Loz, good point about timing. I hadn't even thought about that. This really is a clusterf**k of epic proportions. Teddy, thank you for making me smile!

Sorry to hear what you are going through. There are lots of reasons why people can go off sex, both physiological and psychological. Whilst it's important that your needs are also met in the relationship, if she is feeling guilty about not being able to have sex or pressured by the fact she can't meet your needs, it could be making the situation worse and turning into a vicious spiral. Only you can tell if it's time to walk away, but I'd recommend having another shot at counselling with someone different perhaps.

Alan, I can't see that Parliament will agree to trigger Art.50 without some detail of the general approach at least. I appreciate what you're saying about negotiations, but given the stakes involved here and the fact that will involve removal of people's rights, we can't treat this like a sale negotiation. Based on hundreds of conversations with Leave-voters, I think there would be almost as much anger if the exit resulted in something virtually identical to the status quo than if it didn't take place at all. In any event, the EU co-legislators have far more at stake with the remaining member states than they do with us. Juncker's hardline speeches have nothing to do with us - we're gone as far they are concerned - but are directed at the audience of rising nationalists/fascists in countries like Austria and France. MPs may have been 4-1 against in June, but given we have thugs like the chap I spoke to this morning actually advocating violence if they don't get their way, the political landscape has changed. As you say, if they fail to take their electorate's views into account, I see a general election posthaste.

Teddy, I didn't intend my comment as an attack on you, and sorry if it read that way. I'm just observing that immoderate behaviour abounds all over the place with this debate. I've been left in tears with some of the things complete strangers have said to me about what I supposedly deserve to happen to me.

I had an interesting conversation today with a Leave voter about the judgement. He was very angry about it, even though he hadn't read it. When I explained what it actually said, he said he was still angry as he said it would be used as a way to stop Brexit and stop democracy, and said that banks would now be bribing MPs to vote against it. I explained that, in the unlikely event that a majority of MPs were prepared to ignore the referendum result, if the majority of voters in this country really still believe we should go out, then at the next election UKIP or its equivalent would win and they could still get the exit they want. When he conceded that would be logical, I asked him if he was still angry and he said yes, but couldn't explain it. I also pointed out that the fate of Jo Cox would probably weigh more heavily on MPs than being tempted by supposed bribes from the banks, leaving aside the fact that banks could just move if they wanted. His response was that they should be frightened because there will be violence and civil war if "we don't get what we want". I'm beginning to think that people should only be entitled to vote in anything once they prove they have a basic grasp of the constitution. Some of the stuff I'm hearing is downright scary, and hugely offensive that they dare describe their warped view of the world as democracy.

Well, if everyone who has said an OTT thing like that were to get the sack, then pretty much 2/3s of London's cabbies would have to hand in their licence judging from the immoderate and offensive comments I've had levelled at me from Leave-voting drivers.