Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Brexit" has already begun its damage of the UK. The EU is the UK's largest trading partner and there is no scenario where it will be easier to trade between the two entities now (short of calling off the "Brexit"). And it is going to make little sense for companies that do business EU-wide to use the UK as their European HQ. The future for the UK looks very uncertain now, which is the main harm done by this vote already. Businesses & individuals will avoid investing there due to the uncertainty. In the longer term, maybe the EU will agree to some terms that let UK get many of its benefits it still has today, but the politics of that don't seem likely. In fact it is now looking more like the UK itself might end up dissolving with Scottish independance and Irish unification now getting very serious discussion.
Don't think there is any doubt that there has already been major damage done to the UK by this vote just by the uncertainty alone. And in the hopes of saving a little bit in EU fees will not be enough to offset the long term damage by reducing the flow of people, capital, goods, and services between your largest trading partners.
Learn from this America. If you want to go hide in the mountains, go ahead. No one is stopping you. But stop voting to isolate the rest of us in the country that are trying to get business done.
Yes, the UK could slip down to the level of non-EU countries like Norway and Switzerland. Wait, those are the two wealthiest countries in Europe! (Luxembourg really doesn't count).
Yes, the UK could slip down to the level of non-EU countries like Norway and Switzerland. Wait, those are the two wealthiest countries in Europe! (Luxembourg really doesn't count).
Norway & Switzerland in many ways are closer to the EU than the UK is today as they are part of the Schengen Area and UK is not.
I doubt UK will be allowed to have that close of a relationship with the EU's single market as Norway and Switzerland have had given the way the politics are going:
Quote:
In their limited public statements since the vote, some of the most prominent “leave” backers have seemed to walk back their promises that Britain post-Brexit will enjoy all the benefits of E.U. membership without the burdens. European leaders made clear Tuesday that position is untenable, while pushing Britain to launch negotiations as soon as possible.
And even if they are able to negotiate to keep all the EU benefits there will still be plenty of damage, possibly even fatal, done to the UK.
Good line from the Economist the other day:
Quote:
[This] reflects the lack of clarity in the Leave campaign about what kind of deal they want; a Norway-style approach (with continued free movement and budget contributions) or complete separation (with restricted access to the single market). Of course, this politicking only extends the period of uncertainty that will follow the referendum result. The nature of the UK's trading relationship with the EU will not become clear until late 2018 at the earliest. All the more reason, then, for investors and businesses to delay any decision to put money into the UK; the potential economic damage is greater.
And honestly what is the benefit of leaving the EU if you are going to go with that style of agreement? You still have to abide by many of the EU laws, accept free movement of people and goods, pay fees, you just lose the vote in making the policy for the EU.
If your best-case hope is that you end up with a similar trade agreement to what you have today in the long term in exchange for years of economic uncertainty then that seems like a pretty bad move.
Examples include the standard "marque el tres" on automated phone prompts, somali signage in social services offices, and prayer accommodations for muslim workers.
There have been American citizens for whom English is not their language since the founding of the nation. whether they were Dutch in New York, German in Pennsylvania, etc.
There have been American citizens who are Muslim since the founding of the nation, some of whom were soldiers in the Continental Army. [Source: Curtis, Edward E. Encyclopedia of Muslim-American History. 2010.]
And I wouldn't be surprised if there were Italian signs in social services offices back in the 1910s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domitian
Conservatives don't seem to use those same devices and when they do, they come off as weird (see Ted Cruz)
One of the most powerful tactics conservatives have been using to bolster their numbers in recent years is anti-intellectualism. So why is it that you are surprised that they don't try to foster their perspective with intellectual arguments?
I expect the race will tighten, but this is pretty amazing. The real "tossup" or "battleground" states (leader's probability of winning is in the 50s) from Nate Silver's election forecast are currently:
Missouri - Trump 52.8%
Arizona - Clinton 53.9%
Georgia - Trump 58.1%
North Carolina - Clinton 59.0%
"I say support third parties" Why, so Trump win the Election?
I vote The Democrat because I agree with the Democrat party platform on issues. And Hugely disagree with Republicans on issues.
For the sake of the argument..... let just say democrats are corrupt, and Hilary is corrupt.
1. Nothing the Democrats Party has done this cycle is crazier than what happen in the Republican ran, Your saying the DEM are corrupt for being for Hilary the leading candidate who was clearly going to win, compare to Republicans being overtly against Trump who was winning,
2. And Trump has far far more sketchier record then Clinton. Trump has been sue for discrimination, Have repeatedly said racist stuff. Who Trail for Trump university as a scam, Have on record rooted for Recession to Hurt Americans. Have declared bankruptcy several and escape through loop holes......... Where does Hilary email compare to Trump issues in which I should even care?
So basically your saying vote against Clinton because corrupt wink wink to vote for the even sketchier candidate Trump? or vote against Clinton because she corrupt and support a 3rd party candidate to give the even sketchier candidate Trump the win.
I'm fascinate with people with your view because you so against Clinton saying she corrupt...... when every possible metric by your own argument make Trump worst.
So your talking about a guy "Sanders" who Endorse Hilary. who voted 93% the same in the senate as her. To his supporter to vote against Hilary which would better the chances of Trump, who even more questionable than Hilary, a guy who Sanders said he doesn't want to win, to Win?
"I say support third parties" Why, so Trump win the Election?
I vote The Democrat because I agree with the Democrat party platform on issues. And Hugely disagree with Republicans on issues.
For the sake of the argument..... let just say democrats are corrupt, and Hilary is corrupt.
1. Nothing the Democrats Party has done this cycle is crazier than what happen in the Republican ran, Your saying the DEM are corrupt for being for Hilary the leading candidate who was clearly going to win, compare to Republicans being overtly against Trump who was winning,
2. And Trump has far far more sketchier record then Clinton. Trump has been sue for discrimination, Have repeatedly said racist stuff. Who Trail for Trump university as a scam, Have on record rooted for Recession to Hurt Americans. Have declared bankruptcy several and escape through loop holes......... Where does Hilary email compare to Trump issues in which I should even care?
So basically your saying vote against Clinton because corrupt wink wink to vote for the even sketchier candidate Trump? or vote against Clinton because she corrupt and support a 3rd party candidate to give the even sketchier candidate Trump the win.
I'm fascinate with people with your view because you so against Clinton saying she corrupt...... when every possible metric by your own argument make Trump worst.
So your talking about a guy "Sanders" who Endorse Hilary. who voted 93% the same in the senate as her. To his supporter to vote against Hilary which would better the chances of Trump, who even more questionable than Hilary, a guy who Sanders said he doesn't want to win, to Win?
I'll vote for the best candidate. Not the one I hate least. The only reason Sanders endorsed Hillary was so he can move her more to the left (she still doesn't support taking money out of politics, and she supports the TPP which are two more reasons not to vote for her). I'd be surprised if Sanders stays with her after these leaked emails. The DNC were plotting against him the whole time. Stop acting blind and realize that the democrats don't care about us. They only care about their rich donors.
(BTW stop that a vote for third party is a vote for Trump BS. It's Hillary's job to earn my vote. If she won't believe in the policy positions I believe in, then I don't owe a vote to her. If she loses, it's her own fault. Maybe she'll learn to take responsibility for her actions. Also, this is turning into a four person race, does that mean a vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary?)
Vote for a third party if they're your favorite candidate! Period. Ignore anyone saying otherwise.
First of all, Georgia is not a battleground state. Even if we're only 55% Republican, that's not a battleground state. Winner takes all, so barring some really crazy unexpected and unlikely result, Donald Trump will get every single electoral vote in the state of GA, period, and that's all that matters. Popular vote doesn't matter.
So, if, like me, you prefer Hillary over Trump by a mile but she's not your favorite candidate- remember that you're not hurting her at all by voting third party in GA. She's not expecting to win our state, and she doesn't need our state to win. Your vote doesn't matter. Popular vote means nothing and is not what elects the President. Gore beat Bush in votes total in 2000. Doesn't matter, it's not how the system works.
If this was a dead-even swing state like Ohio or Florida usually is, then a vote for a third party is only 'taking away' a vote from the D or R that you would have otherwise voted for. If you wouldn't have voted at all if not for the third party option, then it's not taking away a vote from Hillary, is it? No.
Last point, even if you live in a close swing state and you prefer Hillary over Trump, I say go ahead and take a vote away from Hillary, if you prefer the other candidate over her. The election process is not supposed to be a horse race where you try to pick the winner or play some kind of strategy. Democracy might actually function in this country if we all just simply picked our favorite candidate purely on their positions and other important factors, and we had a number of viable candidates on the ballot to pick from. The winner would be the reflection of our majority popular opinion.
Don't vote for Gary Johnson if he wouldn't be your preferred president out of these 4 candidates (incl. Jill Stein). Do vote for him if he would be. If all voters just did that, he'd probably win a large chunk of the popular vote, and might win some states. That would be an historic event.
I'll vote for the best candidate. Not the one I hate least. The only reason Sanders endorsed Hillary was so he can move her more to the left (she still doesn't support taking money out of politics, and she supports the TPP which are two more reasons not to vote for her). I'd be surprised if Sanders stays with her after these leaked emails. The DNC were plotting against him the whole time. Stop acting blind and realize that the democrats don't care about us. They only care about their rich donors.
(BTW stop that a vote for third party is a vote for Trump BS. It's Hillary's job to earn my vote. If she won't believe in the policy positions I believe in, then I don't owe a vote to her. If she loses, it's her own fault. Maybe she'll learn to take responsibility for her actions. Also, this is turning into a four person race, does that mean a vote for Johnson is a vote for Hillary?)
Again fascination by your post
Your so bent of wanting to hate Hilary but even by your on criticism would make Trump 10 x worst...
" The DNC were plotting against him the whole time. Stop acting blind and realize that the democrats don't care about us. They only care about their rich donors. "
Mean while..........
- Trump has more scandals,
- Has clearly said racist divisive stuff.
- Has said he want the recession to hurt Americans so he can take advantage.
- The GOP was clearly was plotting against him the whole time it was way more crazy,
- Trump is a rich donor, has super pac as well. he basically everything Sander has criticize.
"she still doesn't support taking money out of politics, and she supports the TPP which are two more reasons not to vote for her"........ Are You oblivious to Trump is a Billionaire? He is wall Street? He actually make products over seas?
Stop it......... Sanders and Hilary voted 93% the same in the senate It's like you want to ignore this, Sanders has said one of reasons he ran as Democrat because he doesn't want a republican to win in the first place. And has describe him and Trump as complete opposites.
"I'll vote for the best candidate. Not the one I hate least."...... So you most not be planning on voting......
Yes a vote Johnson for is vote Hillary, A vote for Jill Stein is vote for Trump, Hilary and Trump are only Candidates capable of winning. So if some who voted for Sanders does not vote Hilary they are essentially voting against the candidate with most similar views as Sanders. And Helping the Guy who stand for the opposite of him. Logic
Last edited by chiatldal; 07-24-2016 at 05:06 AM..
Vote for a third party if they're your favorite candidate! Period. Ignore anyone saying otherwise.
Comments that could only rationally be stated with deceptive intent to disenfranchise those whom you hope to dupe into following your advice (underscored, incidentally, by the vacuous exhortation "Ignore anyone saying otherwise" ).
You've both committed a double offense: The intent to disenfranchise people whose beliefs and values you disagree with, and the intent to accomplish that by deception. Congrats.
By contrast, the contrary advice is very much enfranchising advice: Make your vote count. People should vote based on how they feel their vote would best aide what they feel to be the best interests of the nation. I suppose that comment goes over the limit of allowable nuance for those who want Trump to win, but that's part of the problem isn't it... the antipathy for intellectual consideration of option, honorable consideration of others, and nuance itself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
First of all, Georgia is not a battleground state.
RCP lists 13 battleground states. Georgia is the 13th... the least likely to be up in the air, but still far enough up in the air that it is on the list. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/ At some point Georgia may be taken off the table. Not yet. If Georgia does come off the table, then perhaps there is no way to make your vote count, and doing something "creative" with your vote would no longer be irresponsible.
Last edited by bUU; 07-24-2016 at 05:00 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
