Happy election day to the US community

[Danziger]

No way I'm voting. I already feel terrible for my contribution to a second Bush term, there's no way I'm having either one of these idiots on my conscience. When there are candidates who are actually chosen by the people I will vote. Until then it's just a BS game to make people think they have some sort of choice in how our future is going to look.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, some of my buddies voted for Gary Johnson. He's not perfect but if at least for them and me he seems most reasonable. There are other options, its just most of the publicity seems to be focusing on making sure that other side wont win rather than choosing proper guy. Two party system is just so broken ...

[No_85_Gramps]

 Two party system is just so broken ...

This!

[Danziger]

Na who am I kidding? I can't vote for another two years still because of a felony in 2010. But if I could vote...

 

None of them are worth voting for.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

A lot of times the problem stems from the definition of democracy, and the local expectations of it.

 

In many countries (the United States and the United Kingdom, for example) it seems people want to live in a direct democracy where they have a hand and say in every single action, even though the systems they live in are very clearly indirect democracies. In Brazil where I was born and raised people are little less eager to meddle, but at the same time they are very short in patience and will easily change the government when given a chance. While you have more 'power to the people'. The main problems with that are that a) important issues often will be decided by individuals with nothing close to the necessary expertise to do so, and b) due to the impatient nature of the population, you always have 4-10 year periods trying to build the country in one way, then another 4-10 of someone else picking apart everything the previous government did and rebuilding their own way, ad eternum. If you look at it, most of the countries which follow this system/mentality are countries which are relatively stable and well-off, meaning they can afford the periods of stagnation and infighting that come with changing the government all the time. Brazil, which does not enjoy that kind of stability, is paying the price for making the wrong decision way back in 2002 when the FH Cardoso administration was full of momentum. On the good side, this means the population can intervene if a politician or a whole government are doing something they judge to be blatantly against the people's interests or just plain stupid.

 

Then you have the flip-side of the coin, the kind of democracy you find in Russia for example. Leaving out of the door all the cries of horror from the freedom and democracy-loving Western politicians, since the turn of the millennium the country has really only had two parties which have amassed a sizeable number of votes in the presidential elections (United Russia and the Communist Party). For all the airtime they get in the West, the other opposition politicians take up very fringe positions both in the government and in the people's opinion. In Russia you have a population which is not that much concerned with micromanaging, and instead has a few basic standards which they trust the government to uphold. You don't have much rotation at all in the government, and that lets the current government work on things in a long-term basis without having to take one step forwards and two back every few years. Then again, the advantages of the Western system become disadvantages here - the population can't really do much if they disagree with a certain set of policies, and even when given the choice they are still fundamentally left powerless because all the other options (the mighty stronk opposition painted as freedom-loving angels but which are by and large crooks and oligarchs, in Russia's case) are fundamentally worse and without any idea of how to run a country, particularly one so big. A success story here is Russia, which for all the ups and down it had ever since becoming a single country again, always bounces back from the lows and still retains its geopolitical and economic influence. An example of failure of this system is Venezuela, where the current government has failed to take action against the mounting economic crisis for a number of years already, and yet refuses to either admit defeat or make way for a new government.

 

I see I've rambled too much, so TL;DR stable countries can afford to dick around every few years, not-so-stable countries can't; stable countries can afford to keep the same government over a number of years, not-so-stable countries can't; I guess the conclusion is...

 

 

 

 

 

[SYN_Mike77]

There are a couple of reasons why the polls might be very wrong and neither of them bodes well for Trump.

 

1. The likely voter models that most of the pollsters used had Latino voters coming out at 2012 levels. Looking at the states that have early voting, that is a huge undercount and Latinos are breaking for Clinton about 85% to 15%.

 

2. Clinton has a ground game and Trump doesn't. The Clinton team has spent a ton of money into traditional get out the vote activities. Case in point; my dad is in failing health and could not get to the polls and stand in line this year. The Clinton team (knowing he was a registered Democrat contacted him and asked if he needed a ride and help at the polls, he said yes and is on his way to vote this morning. Trump has no such team in place.

 

There is some discussion about how important a ground game is in the digital age. Obama built both a digital outreach coupled with a traditional ground game and did pretty well. In those elections the Republicans relied on their ground game but may have overlearned the Obama lesson and completely abandoned the ground game. An interesting and daring experiment on the R's part.

 

Hopefully we will know by this time tomorrow! I know I can't take another month of this election!

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

From my perspective the most appealing version of democracy is the one you find in Switzerland. They have many referendums on various matters and in this form people are actually heard and have direct influence on matters around them. 
Popular Initiative System is also having some influence, though lesser than one would hope. But overall I was always jealous of the system Swiss have

[unreasonable]

I like this man way of thinking.Leo Szilard.

 

Even if we accept, as the basic tenet of true democracy, that one moron is equal to one genius, is it necessary to go a further step and hold that two morons are better than one genius?

 

 

 

The problem with this way of looking at politics is that it assumes that there is a "right answer", in which case "intelligent people" are more likely to solve the problem and choose "correctly". You see a lot of this in comment about Brexit, particularly from the losing Remainers. 

 

I believe this is a fundamental misconception. Politics is a negotiation between different groups with different interests, so there is no "right answer". Sometimes nearly everyone will agree, but this is rare. Furthermore, it is up to individuals to determine what their interest are: again this is not something that other people can determine as though it was a problem with a "right answer", since it involves questions of values which are a matter of individual choice.

 

The point of democracy is not some abstract notion of rights, but simply that it has been found to be a method of allowing the interests of those outside the ruling classes to exert some influence on elite behaviour, reducing the pressure for bloody revolution and anarchy. Hence it only works when the proles feel that they do have some influence, as they did during the 20th century when states needed a healthy and engaged proletariat in order to fight wars.

 

In times when globalizing elites in Europe and the US have have managed to undercut democracy by importing voters more to their liking and exporting the jobs of the natives, with military strength now relying on technology and mercenary armies rather than conscripted citizens, the current rebellious and desperate mood is understandable.

Edited November 8, 2016 by unreasonable

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

From my perspective the most appealing version of democracy is the one you find in Switzerland. They have many referendums on various matters and in this form people are actually heard and have direct influence on matters around them. 

Popular Initiative System is also having some influence, though lesser than one would hope. But overall I was always jealous of the system Swiss have

 

The Swiss do have something going there. I suppose it's facilitated by the country's relatively small size and population, most of its residents are employed, and poverty is not a major problem. That gives them a small group of people with similar social status and probably similar priorities as well. One thing I found cool is that all politicians, even its many presidents, have pretty low salaries so whoever wants to do it won't be doing it for the paycheck unlike in many countries.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

There are a couple of reasons why the polls might be very wrong and neither of them bodes well for Trump.

 

1. The likely voter models that most of the pollsters used had Latino voters coming out at 2012 levels. Looking at the states that have early voting, that is a huge undercount and Latinos are breaking for Clinton about 85% to 15%.

 

2. Clinton has a ground game and Trump doesn't. The Clinton team has spent a ton of money into traditional get out the vote activities. Case in point; my dad is in failing health and could not get to the polls and stand in line this year. The Clinton team (knowing he was a registered Democrat contacted him and asked if he needed a ride and help at the polls, he said yes and is on his way to vote this morning. Trump has no such team in place.

 

There is some discussion about how important a ground game is in the digital age. Obama built both a digital outreach coupled with a traditional ground game and did pretty well. In those elections the Republicans relied on their ground game but may have overlearned the Obama lesson and completely abandoned the ground game. An interesting and daring experiment on the R's part.

 

Hopefully we will know by this time tomorrow! I know I can't take another month of this election!

 

and when the media and establishment go on a rampage accusing simple voters as being racist or misogynistic it tends to make people reluctant to admit voting for Trump. This happened in our last GE with a party called UKIP, they were a single issue pressure group (focused on leaving the EU) but then expanded in to a political party....just because they dared to talk about immigration the entire MSM and establishment figures attacked the voters, anyone who worked in government institutions NHS teaching etc (which are often left leaning) wouldn't dare have admitted they would vote for that party not even to a pollster, it was a giant smear campaign. However millions of people did turn pout and vote for them. You can see the parallels with Trump, the MSM has done exactly the same and I think it will blow up in their faces.

 

@ Lucas Great post mate

From my perspective the most appealing version of democracy is the one you find in Switzerland. They have many referendums on various matters and in this form people are actually heard and have direct influence on matters around them. 

Popular Initiative System is also having some influence, though lesser than one would hope. But overall I was always jealous of the system Swiss have

 

I'm not in favour of millions of referendums (ironically) nothing would get done. The best example is fracking in the UK...as an oil industry expert/specialist it is ridiculous to see the rubbish some people believe about that technology and therefore feel that there are many big decisions that should not be in the people's hands, nuclear power being another one. 

[Danziger]

The problem with this way of looking at politics is that it assumes that there is a "right answer", in which case "intelligent people" are more likely to solve the problem and choose "correctly". You see a lot of this in comment about Brexit, particularly from the losing Remainers.

 

I believe this is a fundamental misconception. Politics is a negotiation between different groups with different interests, so there is no "right answer". Sometimes nearly everyone will agree, but this is rare. Furthermore, it is up to individuals to determine what their interest are: again this is not something that other people can determine as though it was a problem with a "right answer", since it involves questions of values which are a matter of individual choice.

 

The point of democracy is not some abstract notion of rights, but simply that it has been found to be a method of allowing the interests of those outside the ruling classes to exert some influence on elite behaviour, reducing the pressure for bloody revolution and anarchy. Hence it only works when the proles feel that they do have some influence, as they did during the 20th century when states needed a healthy and engaged proletariat in order to fight wars.

 

In times when globalizing elites in Europe and the US have have managed to undercut democracy by importing voters more to their liking and exporting the jobs of the natives, with military strength now relying on technology and mercenary armies rather than conscripted citizens, the current rebellious and desperate mood is understandable.

Words of wisdom.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

The problem with this way of looking at politics is that it assumes that there is a "right answer", in which case "intelligent people" are more likely to solve the problem and choose "correctly". You see a lot of this in comment about Brexit, particularly from the losing Remainers. 

 

I believe this is a fundamental misconception. Politics is a negotiation between different groups with different interests, so there is no "right answer". Sometimes nearly everyone will agree, but this is rare. Furthermore, it is up to individuals to determine what their interest are: again this is not something that other people can determine as though it was a problem with a "right answer", since it involves questions of values which are a matter of individual choice.

 

The point of democracy is not some abstract notion of rights, but simply that it has been found to be a method of allowing the interests of those outside the ruling classes to exert some influence on elite behaviour, reducing the pressure for bloody revolution and anarchy. Hence it only works when the proles feel that they do have some influence, as they did during the 20th century when states needed a healthy and engaged proletariat in order to fight wars.

 

In times when globalizing elites in Europe and the US have have managed to undercut democracy by importing voters more to their liking and exporting the jobs of the natives, with military strength now relying on technology and mercenary armies rather than conscripted citizens, the current rebellious and desperate mood is understandable.

 

Great post....so far (and surprisingly) it's been an interesting thread

Edited November 8, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Emil

[6./ZG26_Emil]

and just when things were getting interesting....

 

 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

I'm not in favour of millions of referendums (ironically) nothing would get done.

It's not about millions of referendums but few every few months on local level. Frankly Britain with Brexit referendum is the prime example of poor decision-making based on complete lack of arguments and substantive discussion, maybe Britain is just unsuited for any referendums ? 

 

But frankly, my opinion is opposite. I believe in as much power left to the people and strong local governments rather than dominant centralized government in Washington, Paris, Warsaw or whatever you name. 

 

 

The best example is fracking in the UK...as an oil industry expert/specialist it is ridiculous to see the rubbish some people believe about that technology and therefore feel that there are many big decisions that should not be in the people's hands, nuclear power being another one.  

Thus they end up in hands of few lobbyists who get what they want and people have no impact on things that affect them on daily basis. Might as well exclude them from voting, for some time in fact I was in favor of John Stuart Mill idea of limiting voters rights, but at the end it comes to the same. 

[6./ZG26_Emil]

It's not about millions of referendums but few every few months on local level. Frankly Britain with Brexit referendum is the prime example of poor decision-making based on complete lack of arguments and substantive discussion, maybe Britain is just unsuited for any referendums ? 

 

But frankly, my opinion is opposite. I believe in as much power left to the people and strong local governments rather than dominant centralized government in Washington, Paris, Warsaw or whatever you name. 

 

Thus they end up in hands of few lobbyists who get what they want and people have no impact on things that affect them on daily basis. Might as well exclude them from voting, for some time in fact I was in favor of John Stuart Mill idea of limiting voters rights, but at the end it comes to the same. 

 

We had all the facts, people don't want to be government by unelected bureaucrat they cannot remove from power. What future is left for our kids without the ability to change those in power? Also many people were upset with mass immigration, the poor working classes are the ones who suffers because of housing/school shortages etc. The EU has no right to foist free movement on any country but I suspect they'll come unstuck eventually especially as there are many elections across Europe this year.

 

as far as lobbyists goes, their reach and access should be severely limited, this is why people are sick of their governments, they feel the 'elites' special interests and so on aren't working for the people. I actually thought Trumps idea to ban executive branch officials and lawmakers who want to become lobbyists was an interesting idea, maybe impossible to implement but a step in the right direction.

 

Edit....re referendums and direct power I think it comes down to what decisions need to be made, what sort of examples would you give for things people should vote on directly? As I've said I think energy policy is a bit dangerous as it can take many years to implement. If it were more general, i.e. asking the direction or stance the country will take on certain issues I would agree. Using Brexit for an example people voted for a general change in direction rather than on very specific things.

Edited November 8, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Emil

[6./ZG26_Emil]

What exactly does that mean^^ Am I not allowed, as somebody who actually lives here, to offer an opinion on the role of our media in the mechanics of this peculiar election if it differs from yours?

 

My comments are not intended to be partisan. It is a nearly universally accepted fact here that Donald Trump has expressed some extreme views and been in the news constantly. The difference lies in whether people like him for it or not. I disagree with your assessment that he or his voters are being persecuted by the media. If you can't handle that I'm sorry/not sorry.

 

It was the aggressive tone. I'm not arguing for Trump, it was pointed out to not get too political. I was offering an insight in to the mentality of voters who feel disenfranchised and ignored and even vilified by the media. What I described did actually happen here in the Uk, I have seen the media do exactly the same thing in the US, attacking supporters and voters. So it's not Trump who was percecuted...in my opinion it was a master plan of his to get free advertising for the entire election. Having said that the media have no right in painting desperate people as racists or any other 'ist'.

 

Hopefully that clarifies my point. I don't want to get combative, so far this has been an interesting thread with points of view from all over the place and it's interesting to talk about.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

You had no facts and major Out guys like Boris or Nigel only day after were already admitting that what they said wasn't correct or precise and some numbers were pulled out of thin air. Voters for leave in many areas actually regretted vote very next day because they claimed "they didnt know its actually going to happen" or that "it was only supposed to be warning to EU". 

 

Afaik, you talk about unelected bureaucrats which I agree with, but at the same time you say that some decisions should not be kept in people hands because "it is ridiculous to see the rubbish some people believe about that technology and therefore feel that there are many big decisions that should not be in the people's hands", so again, what difference does it make if they are taken by bureaucrats in Brussels or bureaucrats in London ? 
 

Speaking of which, for the last 20 years Britain did absolutely nothing to change course of Eu. Especially with introduction of smaller countries in 2004, those who did not share common Franco-Prussian view of how centralized Eu should look like, but were willing to integrate on more suitable also for Britain way. Britain got its opt outs, exceptions in acts and kept sending people like Nigel or Godfrey Bloom who were big mouths in EU Parliament but did nothing to actually change the way Eu is shaped. One would expect more from a country that couple decades before was largest in the world. 

 

 

 

Also many people were upset with mass immigration, the poor working classes are the ones who suffers because of housing/school shortages etc. The EU has no right to foist free movement on any country but I suspect they'll come unstuck eventually especially as there are many elections across Europe.

Eu based on Merkel-Hollande choices, was making a poor decisions and yet opposed by countries like Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and many others who already saw what was coming. Again, little was done together to change what Brussels decided. And in regard to immigration, if Britain wants to stay in the common market it will have to guarantee freedom of movement for workers which has to be secured even by non-Eu members like Norway, Iceland or Switzerland.

Britain without access to Single Market would be in huge crisis and this is just unthinkable, frankly even those who were against Eu wanted to remain in Single Market and keep the benefits. But you cant have cookie Emil and eat a cookie at the same time, if one wants to participate in Single Market, European Economic Area, than one also has to obey its laws. 
Britain may end after all implementing Eu laws but this time with almost no influence on them, just like Norway is in many ways. Or to some degree Switzerland. They are of course consulted, but at the end, its Eu members who decide how act is shaped. It's called “fax democracy”, with Norway waiting for their latest legislation to be faxed from the Commission 

 

 

 

as far as lobbyists goes, their reach and access should be severely limited, this is why people are sick of their governments, they feel the 'elites' special interests and so on aren't working for the people. I actually thought Trumps idea to ban executive branch officials and lawmakers who want to become lobbyists was an interesting idea, maybe impossible to implement but a step in the right direction.

Or maybe take the power to make decisions from the hands of few and let people decide.  Maybe my libertarian view is a bit naive, but after all current models are not working. 

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Well I am sorry about that - we're on the razor's edge of finishing a year of utter batshit so I'm not my usual friendly self. It's like fight or flight and I'm at work so I can't just pour an IPA and relax!

 

I do agree...this has been without a doubt the most insane year I can remember.

 

I'll be glad when it's over

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

The local polls here are now open.

 

Edited November 8, 2016 by 12.OIAE_Stick-95

[=WH=PangolinWranglin]

 

 

The local polls here are now open.

They seem like they've been blown wide open by an explosive want to vote!

 

I'm just happy I get off school today. Government class would be a nightmare today.  

[6./ZG26_Custard]

I voted leave and I just want them to get on with it. I was called racist and a bigot on social media just because I voted leave, by people who didn't agree with my point of view or even know me.

 

The racist bigot label is getting old and tired and in large part is used as by some people as way of trying to silence people who they don't agree with.

 

From an outsiders point of view The media in the USA has been completely bias in favour of Clinton and we keep getting told that Trump is a racist etc but tbh I can't find anything in MSM that can support this rhetoric.

 

Edit: I find myself reading Orwell all over again and thinking damn this guy had it spot on.

Edited November 8, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[6./ZG26_Emil]

You had no facts and major Out guys like Boris or Nigel only day after were already admitting that what they said wasn't correct or precise and some numbers were pulled out of thin air. Voters for leave in many areas actually regretted vote very next day because they claimed "they didnt know its actually going to happen" or that "it was only supposed to be warning to EU". 

 

Afaik, you talk about unelected bureaucrats which I agree with, but at the same time you say that some decisions should not be kept in people hands because "it is ridiculous to see the rubbish some people believe about that technology and therefore feel that there are many big decisions that should not be in the people's hands", so again, what difference does it make if they are taken by bureaucrats in Brussels or bureaucrats in London ? 

 

Speaking of which, for the last 20 years Britain did absolutely nothing to change course of Eu. Especially with introduction of smaller countries in 2004, those who did not share common Franco-Prussian view of how centralized Eu should look like, but were willing to integrate on more suitable also for Britain way. Britain got its opt outs, exceptions in acts and kept sending people like Nigel or Godfrey Bloom who were big mouths in EU Parliament but did nothing to actually change the way Eu is shaped. One would expect more from a country that couple decades before was largest in the world. 

 

 

 

Eu based on Merkel-Hollande choices, was making a poor decisions and yet opposed by countries like Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and many others who already saw what was coming. Again, little was done together to change what Brussels decided. And in regard to immigration, if Britain wants to stay in the common market it will have to guarantee freedom of movement for workers which has to be secured even by non-Eu members like Norway, Iceland or Switzerland.

 

Britain without access to Single Market would be in huge crisis and this is just unthinkable, frankly even those who were against Eu wanted to remain in Single Market and keep the benefits. But you cant have cookie Emil and eat a cookie at the same time, if one wants to participate in Single Market, European Economic Area, than one also has to obey its laws. 

Britain may end after all implementing Eu laws but this time with almost no influence on them, just like Norway is in many ways. Or to some degree Switzerland. They are of course consulted, but at the end, its Eu members who decide how act is shaped. It's called “fax democracy”, with Norway waiting for their latest legislation to be faxed from the Commission 

 

 

 

Or maybe take the power to make decisions from the hands of few and let people decide.  Maybe my libertarian view is a bit naive, but after all current models are not working. 

 

Our GDP has grown, FTSE is booming, house sales are booming, the economy is no where near a recession and our pound has weakened which will boost manufacturing. Seems rosey from where I'm sat :D

 

The EU will collapse if it attempts to penalise us

 

Sorry for fast reply...picking the daughter up from school now

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Jeez, that really is crazy to have a major voting and keep it work day. Merica, you can do better than this !

 

I voted leave and I just want them to get on with it. I was called racist and a bigot on soctal media just because I voted leave, by people who didn't agree with my point of view or even know me. The racist bigot label is getting old and tired and in large part is used as by some people as way of trying to silence people who they don't agree with. From an outsiders point of view The media in the USA has been completely bias in favour of Clinton and we keep getting told that Trump is a racist etc but tbh I can't find anything t in MSM that can support this retoric.

Dont think that has anything to do with racism or bigotry to be honest. It's more economical decision than cultural. Also, nobody called you here racist or bigot so what exactly is the point ?

[SYN_Mike77]

"and when the media and establishment go on a rampage accusing simple voters as being racist or misogynistic it tends to make people reluctant to admit voting for Trump. This happened in our last GE with a party called UKIP, they were a single issue pressure group (focused on leaving the EU) but then expanded in to a political party....just because they dared to talk about immigration the entire MSM and establishment figures attacked the voters, anyone who worked in government institutions NHS teaching etc (which are often left leaning) wouldn't dare have admitted they would vote for that party not even to a pollster, it was a giant smear campaign. However millions of people did turn pout and vote for them. You can see the parallels with Trump, the MSM has done exactly the same and I think it will blow up in their faces."

 

This is the idea of the shy Trump voter, which is a possibility but there is also the possibility of the shy Clinton voter. Generally REpublican women who wont admit to voting for Hillary while their husbands can hear it. I think these two cancel each other out though.

 

I tend to stay away from conspiracy theories when there are simpler and more plausible reasons for why things are the way they are. Sure, maybe all the polls are biased against a candidate to the point that they will throw away their professionalism (and future earnings) to try to sway voting a certain way, Or maybe they are using yesterday's voter models not figuring a candidate would so energize a large block of people with his rhetoric.

Edited November 8, 2016 by SYN_Mike77

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Our GDP has grown, FTSE is booming, house sales are booming, the economy is no where near a recession and our pound has weakened which will boost manufacturing. Seems rosey from where I'm sat :D

Grass is greener and boobs are bigger. But you havent made a single step out of Eu yet, not even decided in your Government.

 

 

 

The EU will collapse if it attempts to penalise us

Oy, you will send Spitfires, Monty Python and Benny Hill to stop them ! Nobody will even attempt to penalize you, and biggest proof that you are sovereign country is that nobody tried to stop you. No Eu institution. 

 

 

 

Sorry for fast reply...picking the daughter up from school now

Drive home safely Emil !

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Dont think that has anything to do with racism or bigotry to be honest. It's more economical decision than cultural. Also, nobody called you here racist or bigot so what exactly is the point ?

 

My point is that we are told by the likes of CNN the Guardian and other news outlets and by Clinton herself that Trump and his supporter are "the deplorables"  or are racist or misogynistic. Maybe some people are voting Trump because they are fed up of the same old dirty "politics."  

 

I make no judgement as I am not a US citizen, but if I were I know who I would be voting for.

Edited November 8, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, at least they used to make good Tv commercials for elections:

Few that I saw recently were so poor that I'd say they rather antagonize rather than create sympathy towards candidate. Poor Merica  

[unreasonable]

 

It's more economical decision than cultural.

 

The two are linked in that it - the EU decision - was about what kind of country people want to live in. This has both economic and cultural aspects.

 

People who voted out generally prefer a more "nation state" model, because it is more culturally cohesive and, they believe, in my view correctly, it protects the interests of the non-elite indigenous population better than the alternative. It holds power closer to the people and is more responsive to local needs.

 

In contrast, the remainers prefer a more globalized, borderless model for the economic freedom it offers - plus the enriching diversity of it's vibrant ethnic and religious mix - and appear not to care that power has been handed over to unaccountable technocrats with an explicit agenda to do away with the nation state in order to get it.

 

Again - to say either view is right or wrong is an error - they are preferences. 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Grass is greener and boobs are bigger. But you havent made a single step out of Eu yet, not even decided in your Government.

 

We can't take a step because three high court Judges and a Hedge Fund WAG have tried to block the progress, backed by "establishment" money.

 

Parliament voted 6 to 1 in favor of giving the British people a vote and in so doing handed the decision and one could say "sovereignty" over the choice to leave the EU.  Some Remainers and those elites with a vested interest will now try to do everything in their power to slow ,stall or even stop Brexit.

 

If that happens we will have a major constitutional crisis on our hands in the UK.

 

Edit: I hope whoever the American people vote into power that person serves them and their country well.

Edited November 8, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

From what I hear and see the local media talks Trump a lot because of the spectacle, but the CNN and all major non-American networks are aggressively pro-Clinton. Not sure what they're trying to achieve here, since a German citizen in Stuttgart is very unlikely to have any impact on the South Carolina results.

 

To be fair because of their coverage of the Ukraine issue I stopped respecting their journalism too much. It was hilarious to be in Ukraine itself during the early 2014 mess before the government fell, seeing people riot and show some pretty neo-Nazi stuff, going to Kiev to find it dirty and in pieces then open the New York Times or The Guardian and read about the peaceful democratic protests being oppressed by the evil Putin puppet. But that's another topic.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I still remind you that Brexit results were very close, almost a draw, with 51.9% For vs 48.1% Against. 

 

To me it rather shows how split at that point your nation is. And their voices, of those who voted against, should also be heard and taken into account. Because suddenly it became looking like it was  a crushing victory and in every part of UK people voted for leave, those who were against are forgotten or treated almost like traitors. 

@Lucas, lets not get into Ukaine topic. That is few levels higher than votings, elections and state models. 

 

And yeah, Media are not really a good source of information. It seems that last bits of journalism ethics vanished and it became more important to spread someones agenda rather than inform citizens about matters important to them. Same in Poland, cant find a single newspaper that I could read without feeling of disgust. 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

You're right, I'll zip it

 

Totally agree with the journalism bit - I studied to become one but then went into marketing after a while because it had just become too lousy of a field. You have to scrounge through 15 different sources including newspapers, social media, WikiLeaks and whatnot to vaguely start getting an idea of what's really going on. It's a shame.

 

...sports journalism on the other hand is faring well, but I can only begin to state how understanding modern world geopolitics is more important than having a deep knowledge of the Watford defense.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

"and when the media and establishment go on a rampage accusing simple voters as being racist or misogynistic it tends to make people reluctant to admit voting for Trump. This happened in our last GE with a party called UKIP, they were a single issue pressure group (focused on leaving the EU) but then expanded in to a political party....just because they dared to talk about immigration the entire MSM and establishment figures attacked the voters, anyone who worked in government institutions NHS teaching etc (which are often left leaning) wouldn't dare have admitted they would vote for that party not even to a pollster, it was a giant smear campaign. However millions of people did turn pout and vote for them. You can see the parallels with Trump, the MSM has done exactly the same and I think it will blow up in their faces."

 

This is the idea of the shy Trump voter, which is a possibility but there is also the possibility of the shy Clinton voter. Generally REpublican women who wont admit to voting for Hillary while their husbands can hear it. I think these two cancel each other out though.

 

I tend to stay away from conspiracy theories when there are simpler and more plausible reasons for why things are the way they are. Sure, maybe all the polls are biased against a candidate to the point that they will throw away their professionalism (and future earnings) to try to sway voting a certain way, Or maybe they are using yesterday's voter models not figuring a candidate would so energize a large block of people with his rhetoric.

 

The shy voter theory held water during the last GE with UKIP voters that's where the idea probably emanates from and having been involved in the activism I can say for sure it was a major factor in the under-estimation of the percentages who would vote, I see a very similar parallel in certain Trump voters especially those in government related jobs, in some parts of the US where people are more metropolitan. Personal I'm not so sure there there are shy Hillary voters, they seem to be quick to resort to violent lol

 

One thing I really don't like about the whole campaign is how the media and pundits etc keep going on about women voters or latinos/blacks as if they're some kind of homogenous blob who will all automatically vote Clinton, I find it quite disrespectful to them.

 

Time will tell....can't wait to see the results

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Raaaid, are you on drugs again or just pessimist this time ?   

 

...sports journalism on the other hand is faring well, but I can only begin to state how understanding modern world geopolitics is more important than having a deep knowledge of the Watford defense.

Oh those guys can be biased as well, we have one one channel guy who is 100% FC Barcelona fan. Then you watch him comment Valencia or Real game and you wonder if he is watching different game then you are 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

"I still remind you that Brexit results were very close, almost a draw, with 51.9% For vs 48.1% Against." I don't have to tell you that's how democracy works. The problem we now face is the minority want to change what the majority voted for. Edit sorry I'm on a crowded train on my mobile and didn't know how to quote properly

Edited November 8, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[=EXPEND=Capt_Yorkshire]

There are some great schools in America and some very intelligent people , why are you guys stuck with 2 shit heads as the only choice?  in my opinion your F@cked either way .  as the lesser of to evils i would vote trump.   good luck and may the best douche win.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

A buddy of mine just posted this regarding Anti-Semitism...I have not had time to read it yet so make of it what you will.

 

The Labour party in the UK has been accused of the same sentiments, I find myself trusting MSM less and less and find that I tend to read news from a wide range of fringe news sites to try and get a more board spectrum view of things.

The WikiLeaks emails have been both fascinating and frightening. The revelations that are coming out regarding the links Huma Abedin has  really do require some serious in-depth scrutiny.

 

I won't link a video here but check out YouTube and this video "Anonymous Release Bone Chilling Video of Huma Abedin that Every American Needs to See" I have tried to fact check most of what is said in the video

and it all seems legitimate.

 

 

today's voting will hopefully settle it. For four years anyway.

 

Indeed.

 

Edit: may the best one win....I just wish the USA didn't have a two party system

Edited November 8, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

From here (good old Europe) it looks like a relatively simple choice. If Trump wins, domestic issues will be handled more or less awfully, while foreign policy will be more or less tame (mainly not putting the wiener into countries it doesn't belong). If Clinton wins, domestic issues will be handled more or less tamely, while foreign policy will be kind of awful.

 

It's funny how much importance is always poured into the executive in countries which rely equally on judiciary and legislative as well. As fun as House of Cards can make things look, all three powers can effectively cancel each other if they or their sponsors feel unhappy so picking a presidenterz is only a part of the equation.

[Danziger]

Exactly. I always wondered why people went crazy over presidential elections. Local politics have a larger impact on a person's day to day. Presidents are always promising things they have no power to control and people eat it up.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

If Clinton wins, domestic issues will be handled more or less tamely, while foreign policy will be kind of awful.

 

And that's putting it mildly. I think the world has had enough war, destruction and regime change for one lifetime and Clinton represents the continuation of that foreign policy.