Fair enough, put in "a significant, growing, and increasingly influential proportion of" before "Westerners".
Trump and Brexit: What has happened to the world?
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
Fair enough, put in "a significant, growing, and increasingly influential proportion of" before "Westerners".
You actually think people would voice opinions like those you see in the Right Wing Rags inthe 1950s/60s - you would know I suppose.
I am no capitalist. Stating that, if I have to choose between someone who lives inside the business lobby pocket and someone who lives inside the pockets of those who makes regularly make my trip to work horrible despite being paid more then most of us can imagine, well, I'll choose the former. At least they bring food on my table
Will it ever reach a point where people in countries where there is such a right wing and left wing divide and where the opinions are so diametrically opposed that we could a) start seeing civil war again b) emigration across regions within countries and a clear geographical divide along political lines.. could it get to the point where we find each other intolerable to live with.
Although I happen to agree with you aren't you now attempting to shut down debate by calling people ageist despite whinging in the past about people trying to shut down debate by calling others racist?
With regard to both sexuality and race, the Britain of 2016 is a far better place to live. I can't believe this is even up for debate.
Religion is a more complex dynamic, however, with certain prejudices having increased in recent years, and between multiple communities.
Free speech for young people
Anyone has a youtube news live stream?
I referenced this article a little earlier.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...more-conservative-with-age-young-old-politics
I have said previously that large scale immigration opens up a whole load of societal problems and isn't necessarily a good idea. I think there is a lot in the view that the scale of immigration we have seen in recent years and conflict with Islam has made the older generation want to batten down the hatches.
I think the idea is that conservatism will 'die out' is wishful thinking too.
Am I imagining, or did people talked much less about politics 15 years ago? Now everybody has an opinion and every news cycle is at least 50% politics.
If by talk you mean type endless shit on the internet then no they didn't.
Let's try some statements
- Americans are murderous scumbags, and should be banned from entering my country. Though some of them I assume are good people.
- Jews love hoarding money, it's in their genes.
- Christians bear the primary responsibility for destroying the planet's ecosystems.
- All Germans should have some identifying mark so that they can be easily identified as a security risk.
Ah the Caf, everyone is an armchair political expert (yet called both elections wrong) and so far left it's hilarious, "everyone must be stupid, bigoted, racist, old, young, millennial" and on and on.
The far left is as bad as the far right, the inability of the left to understand the concerns of the right make them just as bad. Throwing around names, accusations and calling democracy out won't solve anything and actually encourages the opposite (often dangerous voting whereby far right parties gain advantages through no effort of their own). Until the left can acknowledge and work towards alleviating the concerns of right wing voters or vice versa, harmony will never be existent. There are genuine concerns on both sides which are far more complex than the likes of you or I to fathom, the political pulse in action isn't as black and white as we make out.
Interesting read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/b...prod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share
The far left is as bad as the far right, the inability of the left to understand the concerns of the right make them just as bad. Throwing around names, accusations and calling democracy out won't solve anything and actually encourages the opposite (often dangerous voting whereby far right parties gain advantages through no effort of their own). Until the left can acknowledge and work towards alleviating the concerns of right wing voters or vice versa, harmony will never be existent. There are genuine concerns on both sides which are far more complex than the likes of you or I to fathom, the political pulse in action isn't as black and white as we make out.
Interesting read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/b...prod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share
Last edited:
People have always talked about politics simply because despite what many might say it has a massive impact on everyday life.
One big difference to 15 years ago is obviously that we now have the internet. Different access to news, different ways to talk about it too.
You have to thanks the internet for that.
20 years ago, you only had the Radio, Newspapers and TV News (all controlled by the same small group of people) to inform yourself, and the fact you cant answer to the TV or Newspaper, was forcing you pretty much to absorb their info, but no way to redirect that info or discuss that info.
Now, you see anything in TV and you can challenge it on forums, social media, even some newspapers has a comment section going on.
Spread and discussion of information can only be a good thing.
Yeah, but also in everyday life. Politicians weren't celebrities, people didn't care that much, with the exception of the election cycle. It's kind of shameful not to have a strong opinion now. It didn't feel like that back then. Not just about politics, but social causes of all kinds.
I don't know, just thinking out loud.
I am not trying to shut down debate, just pointing out the hypocrisy of such stance. You can claim to be liberal, if you seriously believe that older voters should be disenfranchised due to their age and politics. I am a millennial myself, and i live in London, so it's not as my experiences are very different from many young Remainers.
The hypocrisy shown in this thread is staggering to say the least.
It is. As is not allowing children to vote.
There are indeed two sides and the caf is certainly guilty of having a very liberal bias.
However, the fact remains that Trump ran on an openly racist platform. The fact also remains that his attitude towards women has proven to be pretty awful given his comments about their looks and the repeated allegations against him.
Those issues aren't complex, they're black and white. Which is why this election is different to, say, Mitt Romney's run where a qualified candidate was no doubt pilloried on the caf for being a right-wing candidate.
This isn't even about left vs right given that many of the most powerful Republicans also had issues with Trump's campaign.
But that's the caf for you, going on from past discussions this was always going to happen, rather than understand issues and concerns it's always name calling.
Suffrages are already discriminatory so discussing about who should be discriminated isn't a sign of hypocrisy. Just an ethical conversation.
I agree entirely I mean what a choice... the choice they had was to either to vote for the worst president or the worst president... I take that back there have been plenty of bad ones but these two were given the opportunity to see if they could be worse.
If anything this just compounds the opinion (which I hold myself) that the position of president is just for puppets and it does not matter who gets in. They will all toe the line given them by the deep state and whoever runs them.
Actually read an article some years ago that talked about how in the US you are seeing an increase in communities that are less politically diverse. That there is some evidence people are taking into account the political leanings of the areas they choose to move to or decide not to move to.
What of males under 25 and their 'underdeveloped brains' that supposedly make them more impulsive, should they get the vote?
*Cough* Patriots *Cough*
Depends on how the conversation is framed. If it comes down to "Group X should not be allowed to vote because they did not vote with my side" well that's a different issue from a discussion of who in general is best qualified to vote.
I think we all know about things like literacy tests, etc which were just not so carefully disguised attempts at voter suppression in the name of making sure people who voted were qualified to make an informed decision.
Depends on where we wish the threshold to be, if we're going to be remotely scientific about it.
Obviously men under 25 are less able to make informed decisions than those older. Obviously people over 80 are less able to do the same.
You are laughing but it's a very good question, it seems that the 18-25 aren't interested into actually going to the polls, they just discuss about it on social medias, that immaturity should forbid them from voting until 26.
So I propose that only the population of citizens(not just nationals) that are between 26 and 55 years old should be able to vote.
As I say, I agree with your point. Just not sure you are the best placed person to make it given your previous attitude to people throwing around 'isms' when they don't like the debate that is being had.
But you can have the discussion, that's my point. Now in our case like you said, it's just people being hurt by a vote they don't support so the conversation doesn't start well.
Women's brains mature quicker than men's though so they should be able to vote sooner. Then you have the issue of intersex people, maybe some type of brain scan at the polling station to ascertain how developed their brains are?
Maybe brain scans for everyone is the way forward. Only healthy and mature brains of those under 60 should get the vote.
I don't know the scope of it, but the idea of my schooling in the 90s were very much centred around the value of having an opinion. To the point were it became a part of the educational philosophy. It was frowned upon to not have a meaning about the strangest, remote little things.
I don't know is often confused with I don't care, which bias people into forming opinions. Quite frankly, it is rewarded.
But as I said, I have no idea if this is anything more than anecdotal evidence from my own experience.
@ brain scans. Just let everyone watch an episode of Mrs Browns Boys and anyone that laughs gets their vote taken away.Yeah but from an ethical standpoint our societies are fiercely against sexism so we should respect that and just limit it to age discrimination. I'm serious.
The first good suggestion so far.