Trump Wins! Brits Take Country Back! Hillary Loses!

What does "the elitists" mean in this context?

66% people who left school at 16 voted for Leave. 71% of those with university degrees voted to Remain.
 
anatta said:
agreed. Clinton has no ideas, so all she can do is negative campaigning,,which is probably enough
Click to expand...

She has ideas, she's expressed more ideas than Trump.

What she is however is of the old school, she does not represent change like Obama did. I am generally for progress and there are some portions of what Trump argues that are all about progress, I like that. He lost me however first with his obnoxious personality and second with his regressive old school supreme court choices.

The men he says he would appoint to the Supreme Court do not represent change or progress, they represent a move back.
 
Jarod said:
I see the argument that this is somehow connected to Trump's future, but its weak.

If Trump had a different personality, was not so obxinous and was a more honest person I would agree that the argument boded well for his future, but this campaign is going to be more about his temperament and personality than his ideas.
Click to expand...

This is especially rich coming from a Killery supporter.
 
on an interesting side note, in an article about the vote I found a picture which lets us know what happened to all those old tube televisions we used to have....
london.png
 
Jarod said:
I see the argument that this is somehow connected to Trump's future, but its weak.

If Trump had a different personality, was not so obxinous and was a more honest person I would agree that the argument boded well for his future, but this campaign is going to be more about his temperament and personality than his ideas.
Click to expand...

It's tangential but it relates to Trump because of his *conservative* trade and immigration policies.
 
Jarod said:
She has ideas, she's expressed more ideas than Trump.

What she is however is of the old school, she does not represent change like Obama did. I am generally for progress and there are some portions of what Trump argues that are all about progress, I like that. He lost me however first with his obnoxious personality and second with his regressive old school supreme court choices.

The men he says he would appoint to the Supreme Court do not represent change or progress, they represent a move back.
Click to expand...
well that your perspective,but the 4-4 tie was a win for the US Constitution enumerated separation of powers.
And look who opposed the Appeals ct.decision - if Scalia had been replaced,that decision would have been reversed.
Clinton /Sanders ( as much as I like sanders for other reason) simply bypass federalism/balance of powers as an inconvenience;
and we wind up wit the ABC agencies as fiat governing.

So conservative (textualists) ae superior in that sense - and the Tx decision for diversity also was upheld.
There is a much better chance of judges voting for social equality then curbing executive over-each ( reasons of standing)
 
Jarod said:
I'm really not opposed to Britton leaving the EU, there are lots of good reasons for it. The EU will survive without them and they will do well without being in the EU. They will have significant trade and economic agreements with the EU and maybe the flexibility is better for them both.
Click to expand...

i actually see it as a negative for the eu. They used to rely on france britain and germany to keep the PIIGS countries afloat. Now they are down to two and they will be welcoming turkey shorthly XD XD XD

Classic example of more takers than makers :)
 
anatta said:
well that your perspective,but the 4-4 tie was a win for the US Constitution enumerated separation of powers.
And look who opposed the Appeals ct.decision - if Scalia had been replaced,that decision would have been reversed.
Clinton /Sanders ( as much as I like sanders for other reason) simply bypass federalism/balance of powers as an inconvenience;
and we wind up wit the ABC agencies as fiat governing.

So conservative (textualists) ae superior in that sense - and the Tx decision for diversity also was upheld.
There is a much better chance of judges voting for social equality then curbing executive over-each ( reasons of standing)
Click to expand...

On the separation of powers issue, I understand your point. While I agree with the president on the individual immigration issue, I want a president to be limited so I am happy the line is being drawn where it is, do you think Trump will not push the boundries of his power as president?

But... I want a supreme court that respects the Right to Privacy, which I have always felt was misnamed and should be called the right to individual freedom for personal decisions. The judges Trump has suggested are all hostile to this right. Its not just Roe v. Wade, it started with the right for married couples to buy contraception then interracial marriage and also abortion. There are more issues the right to privacy encompases but its clear to me our constitution intends personal freedom from government making such decisions for us.

I also believe in 14th Amendment Equal Protection as outlined in the Gay Marriage ruling ealier this year. The Conservative Judges are also hostile to that portion of the Constitution. On balance I prefer the Judges HRC would appoint because I belive they would result in MORE individual freedom, while the Judges Trump would support would support allowing the States power to limit that freedom.
 
tsuke said:
i actually see it as a negative for the eu. They used to rely on france britain and germany to keep the PIIGS countries afloat. Now they are down to two and they will be welcoming turkey shorthly XD XD XD

Classic example of more takers than makers :)
Click to expand...

That is a very simplistic view of the complex economics involved. The dependence on the poorer nations of Europe wont change for GB, they will still have trade agreements with them and still be dependent on the health of those nations for their own health. Much like the USA would suffer if Mexico or Canada fell into chaos. THey may be able to more greatly restrict immigration in the short run, and they might be able to go into protectionist mode from time to time more easily, but they cant afford to do those things long term or they will end up like the USA in the 1930's.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Jarrod, where does your idea of progress progress to?
Click to expand...

Increased freedom for the individual.
Protection for the individual from mob rule against him or her.

It boils down to the "Right to Privacy" (which I call the right to individual freedom) and "14th Amendment Equal Protection".
 
Jarod said:
On the separation of powers issue, I understand your point. While I agree with the president on the individual immigration issue, I want a president to be limited so I am happy the line is being drawn where it is, do you think Trump will not push the boundries of his power as president?

But... I want a supreme court that respects the Right to Privacy, which I have always felt was misnamed and should be called the right to individual freedom for personal decisions. The judges Trump has suggested are all hostile to this right. Its not just Roe v. Wade, it started with the right for married couples to buy contraception then interracial marriage and also abortion. There are more issues the right to privacy encompases but its clear to me our constitution intends personal freedom from government making such decisions for us.

I also believe in 14th Amendment Equal Protection as outlined in the Gay Marriage ruling ealier this year. The Conservative Judges are also hostile to that portion of the Constitution. On balance I prefer the Judges HRC would appoint because I belive they would result in MORE individual freedom, while the Judges Trump would support would support allowing the States power to limit that freedom.
Click to expand...
The more conservative judges did not want to use the 14th on gay marriage; as the states were already deciding for themselves by popular referendum that gay marriage
was to the norm, and as marriage is typically the providence of state gov't. IOW's let the process get us there.
I can see it both ways, as individuals needed relief now, or as I mentioned. The Kennedy decision was hilarious in its vacuous references btw -look thru it when you get a chance -or read Scalia's dissent.

I completely agree on rights of privacy, and i'm sure abortion is stare decisis by now -which would encompass the other factors you mentioned.

You bring up a good idea that neither a "liberal" judge or a "conservative" judge in extreme is desirable.
But I'm looking at the current crop ofliberals ( especially Kagan) and am seeing absolutely no concept of separation of powers.

I've given upon balance of powers (federalism) -but the real threat is the ABC agencies today.
These are fiat entities that regulate at an alarming pace with no checks and balances-
they can legislate/and enforce without recourse to those effected of due process. and that is most alarming to us all
if we get under their thumb, since they have unchecked powers.
 
Jarod said:
Increased freedom for the individual.
Protection for the individual from mob rule against him or her.

It boils down to the "Right to Privacy" (which I call the right to individual freedom) and "14th Amendment Equal Protection".
Click to expand...

Those sound good. I have to admit. So you're against affirmative action that does not protect white males against discrimination, I assume.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Why anyone in their right mind would advocate for another layer of government on top of their own national government is beyond me. I guess some people like their government broad, and expansive/expensive/intrusive all at once lol.

But Trump comes down on the right side of the anti-globalist movement; and by being over there and giving a speech the day after the vote, he should get a bump out of it.
Click to expand...

Let's not also forget that Obama went over there and told the Brits to stay in the EU. This severely hurt the stay in movement, obviously. The British people didn't like Obama sticking his nose in their business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top