May going down in flames

[_Bach]

I can't claim to be particular well informed regarding the nuance of the Brexit debate in GB.

That’s OK. The author of this thread obviously has your same knowledge. He has no experience in capital investment but does have an IPhone and a degree there from!

Ea: Just for the record: What is your background in anything relevant to Brexit and it’s impact on anything you own or manage? Would be very interested to hear.

[_honorentheos]

I can't claim to be particular well informed regarding the nuance of the Brexit debate in GB.

That’s OK. The author of this thread obviously has your same knowledge. He has no experience in capital investment but does have an IPhone and a degree there from!

Ea: Just for the record: What is your background in anything relevant to Brexit and it’s impact on anything you own or manage? Would be very interested to hear.

Just for entertainment purposes, what possible bit of information might you be able to share that demonstrates your expert knowledge of anything relevant to Brexit you've picked up from being a successful businessperson/middle-management flunky at a distribution warehouse?

[_Chap]

I can't claim to be particular well informed regarding the nuance of the Brexit debate in GB.

That’s OK. The author of this thread obviously has your same knowledge. He has no experience in capital investment but does have an IPhone and a degree there from!

...

Anybody who thinks that the main qualification for having a valid opinion on the UK leaving the European Union is "experience in capital investment" really is orating out of his fundament.

And no, my dear Kapellmeister, I do not speak as someone without experience in deciding on capital investment policy.

[_I have a question]

If you are interested in 'Brexit' I can recommend watching "Brexit: The Uncivil War". It's a great insight into the gullibility of voters and how to manipulate a population. In fact, the programme demonstrates that the Brexit Referendum was a precursor, a test case, for Cambridge Analytica to show what could be done with algorithmic manipulation of social media etc. Before it then went and used its systems to get Trump into the Oval Office.

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/bre ... ncivil-war

51% of British voters voted for a change that they had no understanding of in terms of pro's and con's. When asked, even now, the people who voted Leave, the people who campaigned for Leave, cannot articulate what change they expect to happen as a result of being outside the EU. A common phrase is "We're going to take back control."
"Control of what?"
"Our legislation."
"We already have control of our own legislation within Europe."
"Yeah well, we'll get £350 million a year back that we currently spend on Europe."
"You know that was shown to be a campaign lie?"
"Err...well...it was time for a change!"
"Why was it time for a change?"
"It was better when we weren't in Europe."
"Really? When we weren't in Europe Britain experienced two World Wars, a post war era that saw strikes, power cuts, enforced 4 day weeks etc. What of your current standard of living do you expect to improve as a result of Britain leaving Europe?"
"Maybe we'll be taxed less..."
"Hahahahahahahahaha"

It's unbelievable that so many people made such a massive long term decision on the basis of no understanding of the potential consequences and no grasp whatsoever of what they were actually voting for.

[_canpakes]

51% of British voters voted for a change that they had no understanding of in terms of pro's and con's. When asked, even now, the people who voted Leave, the people who campaigned for Leave, cannot articulate what change they expect to happen as a result of being outside the EU. A common phrase is "We're going to take back control."

And that’s what happened in the States, with folks that didn’t even reach a majority level of voters. Many - seemingly most - cannot articulate why they voted for Trump.

[_subgenius]

51% of British voters voted for a change that they had no understanding of in terms of pro's and con's. When asked, even now, the people who voted Leave, the people who campaigned for Leave, cannot articulate what change they expect to happen as a result of being outside the EU. A common phrase is "We're going to take back control."

And that’s what happened in the States, with folks that didn’t even reach a majority level of voters. Many - seemingly most - cannot articulate why they voted for Trump.

Yes, pretend that voter stupidity is not bipartisan - because such a position is meaningful how? (I mean other than by being just the usual masturbations from the snarky left)

[Guest]

51% of British voters voted for a change that they had no understanding of in terms of pro's and con's. When asked, even now, the people who voted Leave, the people who campaigned for Leave, cannot articulate what change they expect to happen as a result of being outside the EU. A common phrase is "We're going to take back control."

And that’s what happened in the States, with folks that didn’t even reach a majority level of voters. Many - seemingly most - cannot articulate why they voted for Trump.

It's not really akin to a Presidential election as Brexit wasn't a choice between two candidates.

The referendum was asking a more constitutional question of whether to continue with an existing membership of Europe - the consequences of which are known because Britain has been living that scenario for the last 45 years. Or to leave Europe - the consequences of which are not known (even by the people running the Vote Leave campaigns), but when looking back to a time when Britain wasn't part of Europe (wars, strikes, power cuts, poor standards of living etc) doesn't look an attractive proposition. At all.

The equivalent would be something like Hawaii holding a referendum on leaving the Union.

It's noteworthy that all those politicians agitating for the Leave campaign have subsequently fled from the process of delivering it, with perhaps one exception - Michael Gove (and he's a lunatic).

[_Chap]

pretend that voter stupidity is not bipartisan

Why would one do that? Voters on both sides of the party divide have no doubt often voted on the most superficial basis.

But usually that has not had very serious consequences, because the people who have been selected by either parties as presidential candidates have had a good basic understanding, based on experience, of how US politics and the US government work, and, once in office, have shown a basic willingness to accept that they needed advice from people more knowledgable than themselves.

In 2016, the Republicans chose a candidate of a type not seen in recent history: ignorant, venal, narcissistic to a high degree and without the slightest respect for the existing conventions and institutions of politics in the US. And the consequences seem to be grave, and potentially long-term.

So that's why it is reasonable to draw attention to the part that voter ignorance played in getting the US to this situation.

[_canpakes]

And that’s what happened in the States, with folks that didn’t even reach a majority level of voters. Many - seemingly most - cannot articulate why they voted for Trump.

Yes, pretend that voter stupidity is not bipartisan - because such a position is meaningful how? (I mean other than by being just the usual masturbations from the snarky left)

Leaving aside your usual daily references to masturbation for the moment, tell me where I claimed that voter stupidity is not bipartisan, regardless of its association with Trump in particular?

And, feel free to make a case for yourself.