This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Flee
Pages: 1 ... 138139140 141142 ... 520
4171
« on: July 11, 2016, 02:16:49 PM »
4172
« on: July 10, 2016, 03:43:02 PM »
Not millions, but I'm fine with that.
4173
« on: July 09, 2016, 02:01:23 AM »
What's the point of having 5 votes when you can't even give them all to yourself?
4174
« on: July 09, 2016, 01:13:17 AM »
Didn't even last a fucking week.
4175
« on: July 09, 2016, 01:10:45 AM »
Pretty sure they have creams and stuff for that.
4176
« on: July 08, 2016, 02:42:23 AM »
As an uninformed American, what're their stances on the recent British hullabaloo?
May was for Remain, but quietly so. Probably because she could position herself as a 'unity' candidate whichever side won.
Leadsom was for Brexit.
If May were to become the PM, is there a chance she ignores, or delays, the process of leaving?
Openly and directly? Never. It would be political suicide. But in a more indirect and subtle way? Only she really knows, I guess. She's been saying she's going to see Brexit through with, but talk is cheap. She's never going to take the stage after being elected and tell the public she's disregarding their vote. But it's possible she won't shy away from obstacles if it comes to it. She could call for formal parliamentary approval of article 50 (the actual withdrawal from the Union), suggest a second referendum this time on the terms of Brexit, set out certain preconditions that have to be met before leaving, propose expedited general elections, call for more support for the places voting Remain (Scotland, Northern Ireland and London), try to start informal talks with other world leaders to probe potential scenarios / trade agreements... There's a ton of things (a lot more than the brief list I just gave) she could do to delay Brexit and it's not hard to think of a passable justification she could give for all of them ("ensuring national unity, achieving the best negotiating position for Britain, respecting democracy to the fullest extent...") to avoid people calling her out on trying to Remain after all. And all of the above could delay the process by months, if not years. She already said on Twitter that she doesn't forsee a Brexit before the end of the year, so it's not likely to move quickly. Is it likely? No clue. I really don't think anyone knows but herself and maybe a few of her closed allies. Is it good? Depends on who you ask. Is it possible? Definitely.
4177
« on: July 08, 2016, 01:30:13 AM »
Has it actually been confirmed it's the BLM responsible?
4178
« on: July 07, 2016, 06:09:40 PM »
I find it surprising how much race still matters in the US. It's one of the things my girlfriend sometimes talks about and I found it hard to believe at first. So I can't really relate here as I almost never hear or read about racism.
4179
« on: July 07, 2016, 05:23:02 PM »
I MAY be inclined to hope for her to win over leadsom because it opens up a world of punny headlines for the papers every single may.
Prime Minister elect: A daunting task ahead - MAY the Force be with her. Don't even have to wait for May.
4180
« on: July 07, 2016, 03:44:27 PM »
What the hell does "TILL" mean?
the word "till" (as in "until") capitalized for emphasis
That's what I thought but I've always seen that word as "til" and it seemed really odd that he would start all his sentences with slang.
I first thought it was just a variation of "TIL" which stands for "Today I Learned..." myself.
4181
« on: July 06, 2016, 03:44:56 PM »
You literally just hated on him for being a business man and making billions of dollars. That was it. He lies, so what. So does everyone. Jeeze, sorry for being successful. No, that was a very brief summary of what I have to say about Trump and corruption. My reasons for thinking he is a terrible presidential candidate go well beyond the very specific question I just answered. Every person who runs for president is out for their own interests. If they weren't, they wouldn't be running. Being president is a terrible job. Problem is that your presidents don't typically run a real estate and corporate empire alongside their presidency. This is pretty unique. Do other people run for president out of complete selflessness? Of course not. But Trump would be in the unseen position where his position as president can directly affect his enterprises. Trump will be president for no more than a few years. But his corporate interests? They'll last decades. It's like putting the owner of the nation's largest pharmaceutical in charge of the FDA and expecting him not to favor his own interests. If you're interested, Wall Street Journal just did a piece on Trump's conflicts of interest. And when looking at Trump's history of lies and terrible track record of abuses, it's absolutely not unreasonable to assume that this man will not strike a fair balance.
4182
« on: July 06, 2016, 03:21:27 PM »
I agree. People here are pretty accepting.
4183
« on: July 06, 2016, 03:18:40 PM »
]If you have a case for Trump being even NEARLY as corrupt as Clinton, please share it here. I'm genuinely interested.
Because so far I haven't seen Trump taking in a fraction of what Clinton does from special interest groups, especially not ones as shady as the Clintons pal around with. In fact, he's been outright decrying it. I'm sure, if there was some notable evidence of corruption, the Clinton shills running every media outlet would've made sure we knew about it.
You're asking me to demonstrate the corruption of a man who has not yet actually held political office. That's impossible to do. But we're talking about a man who is about as corporate as they get. Someone who has been caught lying so many times I'm appalled to see that people still take him seriously. A man who has been the subject of so many scandals and controversy that it would've ruined just about any politician's carreer. Private settlements over racist conduct, breach of contract and sexual harrassment. Likely ties with mafia and organized criminal activity. Fraud. Scams through his "Trump University" and other projects. Straight up intimidation as part of some of his business deals. Deliberate avoidance of tax and welfare contributions. Alleged marital rape. Several violations of antitrust laws. Bribery. Trump hasn't revelead his tax or income records. He funds his own campaign, so he doesn't disclose how much he receives behind closed doors. But I don't think anyone in the right mind would doubt that these contributions are very real. Trump is a businessman. A man who has been as deeply involved with corporate culture as you can possibly imagine. To think that he is not just as influenced by his fellow men and primarily serving his own corporate interests is really just naive. Trump runs an empire and that won't stop if he would become president. This man has been the subject of so much controversy and despicable behavior that you could write books on it and he isn't even an actual politician yet. He is a blatant liar with such a terrible record and so many corporate ties that thinking he will do anything as president but serve his own interests is almost crazy. I can't stand Hillary Clinton. But Trump? He is so, so much worse.
4184
« on: July 06, 2016, 01:36:46 PM »
Uh yeah..
Pokemon GO is not currently available in US stores, but Itunes says it is in New Zealand
It's releasing around now. It's out in Australia, and I just installed the .apk.
4185
« on: July 06, 2016, 11:24:51 AM »
Don't bank on May getting it, though. Very few times over past leadership election cycles for the Tories has the first-round frontrunner actually won. May might take it, simply due to the political climate right now, but I wouldn't put money on it.
Ah, I had no idea. Seemed to me she was doing quite well with not a lot of real opposition so far. Thanks.
4186
« on: July 06, 2016, 11:24:07 AM »
Anyone else playing? Just downloaded and installed the app. Seems to be working perfectly so far, I caught Squirtle for a starter and there's apparently quite a lot of activity (poke-spots, gyms, pokemon) in my area. Haven't gone outside to actually look at stuff yet, but it's pretty cool so far.
4187
« on: July 06, 2016, 08:07:18 AM »
Crabb is out.
Fox too. Looks like May will take it. Not sure how I feel about that.
Who do you support now?
I'm supporting May now. She was a 'quiet' Remainer, and I think she has what it takes to negotiate with a degree of strength. I'm not entirely convinced with her record, but anybody who can survive being in the Home Office that long isn't stupid, and I'd much rather have May sitting in Whitehall that either Leadsom or Gove.
Yeah, I too think she'd be the best choice. Little to no populism, no nonsense, obviously smart and likely the most pro-EU candidate still in the race. Probably the best choice for the UK and EU.
4188
« on: July 06, 2016, 05:59:32 AM »
lmao at all these people bitching about the decision when the literal alternative is a Trump presidency
Still better than having a warmonger and a criminal for a President.
Trump "we'll need tens of thousands of boots on the ground to crush ISIS", "bomb Iraq oil fields to stop Muslim extremism" and "pre-emptively use force to stop North Korea from making nukes" looking to strengthen the US military to be globally untouchable and put up displays of force all over? Or the Trump who's been involved in a list of scandals and criminal allegations longer than the character limit on here would allow? Hillary is shit. But this idea that Trump is not just as corrupt, bought, self-serving and out for personal gain is very naive.
4189
« on: July 06, 2016, 04:27:11 AM »
Works fine for me.
4190
« on: July 06, 2016, 04:09:17 AM »
Crabb is out.
Fox too. Looks like May will take it. Not sure how I feel about that. Who do you support now?
4191
« on: July 06, 2016, 03:36:05 AM »
Can't say I'm too surprised.
4192
« on: July 05, 2016, 06:43:48 PM »
Yes, thank you again for reminding us all what was already firmly established several months ago. Your unnecessarily lengthy infantilizing paragraphs are always appreciated. Perhaps my replies would be different if I felt you were actually looking for a serious and mature discussion and didn't regularly conduct yourself with this lack of decorum you're faulting Remain for. Your last few replies in this thread definitely seem different, but you don't usually give me the impression that's what you're after. My apologies if that's what my replies sometimes come across like. Point is, it would be political suicide to just shut the door on a clear and decisive democratic verdict. As opposed to making a decision leading to being ostracized by the entirety of the EU, going against the wishes of pretty much half the population and following the suggestion of 36% of those eligible to vote, a group which is so divided that no matter what is ultimately arranged a very large portion thereof will feel betrayed and wronged? I also don't think you see how this would go down in practice. You seem to be under the impression that the moment they get into a position of power, these people will just publicly announce they're ignoring the referendum. This would be a process that'll take months. They'll delay article 50 endlessly. They'll seek out all possible obstacles, try to involve the countries making up the UK as much as possible, present the EU in a more positive light, call for a second referendum on how Brexit should be implemented, point out how many of the Leave promises are unobtainable, argue for new expedited elections, seek parliamentary approval, try to arrange informal talks with EU countries, make clear just how cumbersome it would be to leave in practice and so forth. And then, months down the line when most of the dust has settled, it would be revealed that leaving is no realistic policy choice, that the times have changed, that free movement is necessary to retain access to the European market, that EU legislation shall always play a significant role in the British legal system and that the benefits of EU membership are just too good to ignore. That Britain needs a better deal but that the only way this can be achieved is from within the Union. That is how this would pan out, if ever. No public and blatant defiance of the 52% voting Leave. But silent and much more effective opposition by those who realize this isn't over until there's a formal act on the table. Is this preferable for the UK? No. Do I support this? No. Is it a possibility? Absolutely. Is it their prerogative however, to block a clear and resounding majority vote, however small it might be, just because a select amount of people are personally upset? No. Legally speaking? Absolutely. No matter what you say, they have every right to do just that and choose not to follow a non-binding survey fueled by misinformation, lies and propaganda when they believe it's best for Britain and more in line with their party. What we don't need is an irresolute government, and immature attempts at hindering a majority vote like you seem to be suggesting. It's not going to happen, sorry. You misunderstand. I'm not suggesting anything. I don't particularly care about the UK or whether or not it'll remain a member. It's likely that little to nothing will change either way. I'm merely speculating. And with the current governmental turmoil, the lack of an actual plan and the increased likelihood of necessary parliamentary approval of a formal act in mind, I'm just saying that I would not be surprised if we don't get to article 50 within the next couple of months. And depending on what goes down before that point, the question remains if the people in charge are still going to be as eager to push the big red button then as they are now (or rather, were the days before the referendum). And because I'm not looking for a fight of any sorts, I tried to keep this short and as neutrally toned as possible. I hope you can appreciate that.
4193
« on: July 05, 2016, 07:34:08 AM »
Blast from the past.
4195
« on: July 05, 2016, 04:50:49 AM »
It would be entirely acceptable not to follow through with Brexit. Acceptable for you maybe, certainly not acceptable for the democratic process.
I disagree. The UK is not a direct democracy.
He's got you there Mordo
I mean, there's a reason this was completely non-binding from the very start. The referendum is intended to be nothing but an advisory tool for the British government and parliament to base their next actions on. Democracy means the people are involved with the election, functioning and decisionmaking of the government. That the people hold the ultimate power and, usually through a system of representation, participate in the governance of their country in a fair way. It does not mean that when 500,001 people out of a group of 1 million vote for an action which directly and quite drastically affects the entire group, the remaining 499,999 should just shrug and say "well, the people have spoken now, so let's just completely switch sides, stow away our objections and make no attempt to change anything" or else they're being "undemocratic". Especially so when in reality, the group actually consists of 1.3 million people but 300,000 of them just didn't vote (ultimately, the people voting Leave don't make up more than 36% of the British population eligible to vote). It's such a terrible and petty argument that can be used to shut down any opposition to just about any governmental policy. "You disagree with this new law? Well tough shit, it was voted for and enacted in a fully democratic matter by a clear majority of representatives, so your opposition and attempts to have it repealed are just sad, salty and undemocratic". And all of this holds especially true for this scenario, because there's no clarity whatsoever on "which" Brexit actually won. There has never been a clear plan or actual choice for the people about what Brexit would actually mean. People didn't vote for an actual policy choice. You asked a group of people inside a house whether or not they wanted to stay inside. A very small majority said they wanted to go outside, dragging the rest with them. Now, you have those people standing outside on the doorstep, discovering it's pouring rain and going "okay, so what now?". Leave is a group of very different people with very different opinions and ideas on what leaving actually entails. Some want out in name only, retaining full access to the European market and free movement. Others want closed borders and all migrants thrown out but still trade agreements with Europe. Some want complete independence and British nationalism. Others are perfectly fine with following some EU rules in some fields. Some support funding parts of the EU and benefiting from its programs. Others want no part in those membership fees and believe that money will all go to the NHS. Despite all of this, they're all put together into the same camp. No matter what the outcome, no matter what ultimately gets decided on, a majority of Leavers will be disappointed and feel betrayed with some or all aspects of Brexit's result, feeling that their vote has been used for something they really didn't support. And yet, turning a very complex issue affecting just about all aspects of society and public policy into an apparent single-issue yes/no vote without any plan or foresight whatsoever is apparently the prime example of democracy now, while those who genuinely believe leaving the EU would be bad for the UK and now take perfectly legal action to have their voice heard and to steer the government towards not blindly following the results of a non-binding advisory poll with a tiny majority are branded as undemocratic and are told to just get over it. Britain is not a direct democracy without checks and balances or appropriate safeguards and failsafes. It has evolved well past a tyranny of a majority, where the 50.1% gets to decide what happens to the 49.9% and where the minority (which is about as large as the majority) is discarded as salty losers who should just get over it and fall in line. It operates on the basis of fair representation. It is a society where the people vote for platforms, representatives and ideas they support, which then receive a fair spot and influence at the negotiating table based on how much support they gathered. The people vote for platforms which are better educated, informed, skilled and capable of defending and enforcing their interests. On their behalf, they compromise, enact and find solutions, all while being held accountable and restricted by the necessary checks and balances. To denounce all of this and discard the government and legislator doing what they're supposed to because a tiny majority in a non-binding poll making up 36% of Britain's population capable of voting supports action X as "undemocratic" and now wage a war of slander against those salty "remainiac" losers who well within their rights and legal means try to dissuade a policy choice from becoming reality is beyond understandable.
4196
« on: July 05, 2016, 03:06:24 AM »
Your performance would increase threefold without a weeb pad.
4197
« on: July 05, 2016, 03:02:19 AM »
Congratulations America.
F
4198
« on: July 04, 2016, 11:34:21 AM »
Can Flee read German fluently?
Apparently Schauble only said we'd be excluded from the Single Market because Osborne asked him to.
Fluent would be a bit strong, but my reading comprehension is pretty good. Welt am Sonntag: Sie sagten vor der Abstimmung auch: "In is in. Out is out". Was heißt "out" heute?
Schäuble: Ich habe diese Formulierung auf ausdrückliche Bitte des britischen Finanzministers gebraucht.
Welt am Sonntag: Die Briten haben ausgerechnet einen Deutschen dafür gefragt?
Schäuble: Ja, George Osborne bat mich, nach London zu kommen, um das "Remain"-Lager zu stärken und aufzuzeigen, dass ein Brexit ein unumkehrbarer Schritt sein würde. Jeder Wähler musste wissen: Nur wer Mitglied des Klubs ist, kann die Regeln des Klubs mitbestimmen. Deswegen habe ich diesen Satz gesagt. Eigentlich habe ich dafür kein Copyright." The World on Sunday (Newspaper name): Before the vote, you also said "In is in. Out is out". What does "out" still mean today? Schäuble: I used that expression on the explicit request of the British minister of finance. Newspaper: The British requested that of a German, of all people? Schäuble: Yes, George Osborne asked me to come to London to strengthen the Remain side and to make clear that Brexit would be an irreversible step. Every voter had to know: only those who are a member of the club (the Union) can determine the rules of the club. And that's why I said what I said. Ultimately, I don't have the copyright of the expression (meaning that he shouldn't be credited for coming up with it). I didn't read through all of it, but I thought that was the part you're after. He's not really saying anything about the internal market specifically, but does say he made the "in is in, out is out" quote on request of Osborne to make clear Brexit wouldn't be reversible. If you were talking about a different part of the article, let me know and I'll translate it too.
4199
« on: July 04, 2016, 09:06:20 AM »
Link doesn't work and I couldn't find anything on google about this.
Some sort of social experiment, Meta?
There's plenty about it on Google, but it apparently dates back to 2012 and never led to anything. The scientists also aren't from Oxford, it seems, but it was just the journal's editor arguing that the article has a place in the journal who was from Oxford.
4200
« on: July 04, 2016, 06:31:35 AM »
That would take me so much work.
Pages: 1 ... 138139140 141142 ... 520
|
Show Posts