[QUOTE=joeysteele;9063948]I am sorry Joey, but you are meandering way off the subject under discussion - which is my response to Kizzy's post - and the subsequent baffling and mainly irrelevant responses to that are just too time-consuming for me to respond to.

So I will leave it here with respect Joey.

Is that my job you are offering Dezzy :shocked:

It seems we agree that many leave voters made an informed and researched decision just as many didn't.
You began your post with -
"I actually totally have to disagree that informed decisions were made in voting, on both sides too, although those voting remain knew things would probably go on as before."
And then continued with examples of people you know who voted leave without any or many actual reasons.
Maybe if you'd said 'I actually totally have to disagree that informed decisions were made in voting FROM SOME leave voters' then I wouldn't have misunderstood your meaning.

Kirks post didn't have any acknowledgement of an opposing view because he was giving a rebuttal with examples of leavers who he knows to a post which was covertly implying 'Joe public'(people who voted leave) were uninformed idiots who were about to get some big shock or 'kick in the nads'.

The rest of your post I agree with.Although i haven't seen you abused Personally it may have happened.

No problem.We have to restore balance to the force sometimes:laugh:

You can't possibly know that.Despite what you might think.Most people aren't brainless drones in this country.Yes there are people like that but saying 'the majority' are is pure conjecture.
I would think the majority did a little digging themselves since the internet is now a thing.

:laugh:

I am rather confused that there was any difficulty in understanding my statement.
Since I myself included no quantifying at all of the comment because like everyone else, I do not know how many voted that were in fact who could be termed not informed.
Hence no figures of any quantity even as to minority, half or majority in my post at all.

Just as I equally, which is why I also included both for leave and remain in my posts, have no idea if the minority, half or majority, of remain voters voted remain with the full knowledge of the workings of the EU itself either.

With respect neither have you or anyone else as to that.

Also finally, the abuse I mentioned did happen, not 'may have happened', it did,since I was on the receiving end I know it did.

I was hammered on here accused of being someone who pestered people and invaded their privacy by canvassing knocking at their doors during the EU referendum, a duty I and hoards of other people were supposed to carry out as a part of a canvassing team.
Just to mention one instance.

You didn't see it, so you just say maybe it happened, it did happen.
I balance my views on here whenever can, I never need to make anything up.

However,I have held back as a member on here but the getting at done on here,jumping at any little thing for whatever reasons,is a turn off.
Some are getting a raw deal just for who they are on the forum, that is sad to see anywhere, not just on this forum.
So I felt the need to defend someone today just as it seems you did too.

Except no insults were flying from me as to all their posts on any of the points I made or raised.

there are good reason's why people did not want her to lead the country, she said that america will go to war with russia in syria, and then she would try her luck to roll the tanks over the russian border, she said that Iran needs to be destroyed, when Iran is no threat to anyone, and many american voters had alot in the backs of their heads, why was she so persistent to remove gaddafi from power, when he had a very strong relationship with america, and his country was very stable under his rule, and why was she to appoint a member of the muslim brotherhood to the highest position of power in the country, and chelsea clinton living in a new york apartment that cost 11 million dollars, where did she get the money for that, and why is her foudation getting money from a country that has the worst human rights records and has gay people executed, its very fishy that liberal groups turn a blind eye to it and then say that trump is a danger to there freedom, I wonder who feeds their apple cart, alot of american voters knew that there was something not right about how the democrats got hillary into the leadership win over bernie sanders.

Yeah,When i said 'it may have happened' I wasn't doubting that it did.Maybe i worded that incorrectly.I do believe you that it did and i don't think you make anything up.I often enjoy and learn much from your posts.I was just saying that I didn't see it.I also try and stay out of all the drama and bickering on here(i get enough of that irl from the misses:laugh:).However i believe you Possibly misunderstood or misrepresented Kirks post in saying he was trying to have some kind of 'monopoly' in knowing people on the leave side from all different backgrounds when this was not the case.He was simply refuting an imo underhanded dig at leave voters.
Anyway i'm sure we'll all be warring about some other issue in a few weeks and then CBB.It's all entertainment.

Don't know what life experiences you have, or what type of Joe public you know, but many from my experience know enough. You don't have to be a 'political expert' to have valid views on the subject.


Please don't judge everyone by your own standards! :joker:

I think as this section has demonstrated multiple times, politics is neither a straight forward, clean, nor cut and dry affair. US politics in particular is extremely complex and many people are aware there are numerous theaters of thought going around at any time during any election. Much of it happens out of her view and you have to attend things in person (like council meetings) to figure out who is in the same ballpark as your view. So if it seems like voters make decisions based on soundbytes and general narratives in the media, that is understandable because sometimes that last word of what we hear in the media has weight as something of a footnote when it comes to deciding which way to vote . However, I think that many people understand a lot of topics in the media quite deeply, especially those who actually vote... it's just that you don't hear their voices because they don't come on message boards or FB to vent their affair. US politics is a very messy affair and to say just one thing on social media about it is to invite the fanatic who wants to post 50 YT videos on the subject to sway their reader base (it's never about the poster, it's about them).

Most people here keep the politics to close family members, local clubs (like charities), unions (like I now participate in thanks to a client), other organizations (like HOA's, animal rescue organizations), work with close intimate team works and lastly... the dinner table. If you're a university student, then it's your classroom (especially liberal arts), your hallways, your posters and every other person out in the public with posters and media. Politics is integral to the functioning of our democracy. To dumb it all down to soundbytes in the media and general ignorance doesn't do justice to the realities of how politics functions in the democracies we participate in today... this forum is a drop in the bucket compared to the conversations we have in the streets today. Maybe in local area, it's a taboo thing to discuss, but in the US... not taboo at all. Having an opinion or exercising freedom of speech is being American.

Anyway, I always give people the benefit of the doubt to those who oppose me just simply based on the fact their living circumstances are likely not to be equal to my own and there's benefit to hearing multiple views on a subject matter, especially those more experienced in life. Though good to see that there are a few that see the shades of things that I am able to see (and have experienced) in my relatively short life. That to me is a sign that those particular ideas are still traveling around within people's spheres. I used to think of EU as a very liberal and progressive place compared to the US... however, since being on this board, I've learned that is in fact not the case, and that EU (UK) in particular has just as many views as we do in the US. Naturally, depending on where you live, your major views will shift...

I usually take issue with threads such as this, normally, where commentators take cheap shots at the opposing base(s) on their soapboxes. It's a rather cheap and low rent view on things, but then let's think about this... I liken these people to shock jokes--merely saying things to get attention. But hey, it works doesn't it? This cockwomble (that's a hilarious ****ing name btw, I'm keeping it) was recently featured on CNN when citing the "alt right". Still, they cited this movement as 1-3% of Trump's voting block. Something I really question if it is truly that low.

It's the cockwombles like these dudes that drive controversy and drive up the stagnant earth to crack and crumble around weak ideas or unchallenged ideas just waiting to be tested in our political sphere. We have them on both the right and left, and they know best just how to troll the media, as they not only have the means but the willpower to do so with focus and without restraint.

Our mainstream media, the slowest one in the room, still, is trying to wrap it's head around this election result. They just can't quite get a good grasp on what exactly the alt right is (Glenn Beck had this conversation the other day), what it actually stands for and what type of influence it has had on sections of our public. 1-3% is still a really low estimate imo of how many Trump voters are being influenced by the alt right. These videos get a lot of views and attention, otherwise they wouldn't be cited so frequently (in social media) and I can almost guarantee they were all over FB before early voting opened... because I know how often this information gets picked up, travels and picks up traffic. It's actually my job to analyze this for my clients.

If the mainstream media has one job, it's to dumb it all down to the lowest common denominator. So if CNN and all these other major outlets are having trouble still dumbing this down, this should speak volumes. Their true spots and colors are showing, because they can't just wrap it up in a nice pretty bow and standard narrative anymore. They actually have to work for their story (:laugh:). I mean go figure.

I'll give them credit, they're definitely trying. However, they've had more than a few hosts on there with sour oats because they couldn't figure out how to make it plain and clear to the banal individuals out there. I think just about anyone knows there's more to the story. Hence why most people just stay quiet about some things, particularly their opinion on these issues. It's these cockwombles, movements and other assorted groups that are creating the mega earthquakes in our political sphere atm... not the mainstream... the mainstream would be happy to move to the center of gravity when it comes to these discussions, but as they learned on November 9th, to do so opens them up to some liabilities, so they actually now have to cover **** more instead of just finding some pretty narrative to stand behind. We are not living in a period of cut and dry politics and narratives anymore. The media can't get away with this anymore thanks to the internet (primarily) and increased populist politics circulating in our everyday society(ies).

I've been watching mainstream since election day and short of paving over the ruin with more fresh cement and trying to start back over after this last reset, which only works temporarily, they are clearly having a difficult time painting a clear and balanced picture of just what happened on November 9th. I noticed some self-deprecation on the part of the hosts on TV as of late... they were honest in saying they clearly dropped the ball on this movement.

I'll post this about Glenn Beck. He had a great deal of humble soup to share around and actually... this should give you some idea of just how much these politics (partially fueled by cockwombles) is affecting the way mainstream media delivers their stories.







Anyway, these cockwombles have a very important function in our media (non-mainstream) than we often give them credit for. As much as I dislike the method to their madness.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:Phew!!! You CERTAINLY are a very, very, gifted writer Maru, and your intellect leaps out from every paragraph.

I cannot think about that term; 'Cockwomble' without involuntarily breaking into a smile - I think it was BlackDagger who used it, and he has a very dry wit.

Great post again Maru.

Evasive? not even slightly. Your post that I quoted was obviously referring to the point I made about the uninformed masses then you tried to make out that I called you uninformed even though I didn't because you were looking for a reason to be offended.

And I think it's naive to think that most voters take the time to understand the issues. They don't, it's so unrealistic to think that most people on any side make informed choices.

brexitors did more so than bremainiacs. the bankrupt nations the endless unemployment, the open borders and radical terrorism, the massive lies of the mass media, the corporate tax dodging cartels , the endless illegal arms trading, the paid off lobbyists, the mass over population etc etc

Do you see yourself as coming under the umbrella of 'most people'. You seem to think this does not apply to you. Please enlighten me as to why!

For some bizarre reason bremainiacs seem to think they are wholly superior to all the brexiteers. The truth is the exact opposite.:joker:

Thanks for sharing! The intolerant liberals are the reason trump won this election hands down. I am a liberal and a democrat but the way other liberals act in America made me want trump to win this election, and I'm glad he did.

You're asking me to explain the blatantly obvious.

Go ask most people who voted in the last election and ask them if they know who their local MP is and what their stances are on various issues. I'm telling you now that most people won't know or care. That's being uninformed.

Brexit was pretty much decided on the issue of immigration despite the fact that neither possibility would have changed immigration for better or worse thus the people who voted Remain or Leave based on that are uninformed.

People voted for Trump because he represented a mindset that appealed to them or they opposed Hillary or the soundbites of building walls to keep rapists and muslims out appealed to them. I imagine very few people voted for him based on his policies, most of which benefit the 1% and is predicted to be disastrous for the middle and working classes of America. People voted for him because of who he is, not what he'd bring to the table. That's being uninformed.

I'm not uninformed as are most people here because we all take time to look into the issues we discuss. It's rather naive to believe that everyone puts in the same effort as we do.

I noticed you didn't brign anything to the discussion with that post aside from an attempt to get a personal dig in though. You should consider trying to add something of value to discussions in the future.

There’s a difference between uniformed and ill informed. I agree, people should aspire to look up each individual candidates’ positions. However, personally, this research can only be so effective, as many of these all important policies and promises are often forgotten once elected. (I should know, I follow these developments post-election) Many candidates end up falling in line with their party once elected or just continue with tried and tested politics with randomly injected experimentation per their party—if they’re not an incumbent and need to show efficacy.

This leads to a lot of disillusionment on the part of the voter in terms of what information/facts are most relevant/useful to deciding the best choice on their ballot. That’s why major platforms are so effective and it’s also why we have a party system in place… to keep these agendas more or less stream lined and in line with the different thought groups in politics. In my experience, democrats in Houston are different than democrats in MD… that said, the two are still similar socially speaking ... and this would be really the only pertinent information to gather from a candidate’s platform seeing as you can’t really verify “Well we want to reorganize the way we record our records… “ ok… but how do you verify how it was run before? How do we know this is a good position? What was wrong with the other system? Did they lose records? :laugh: Begin the hours of googling one minor talking point…

Anyway, the way a campaign here is run is complicated. Many are compare and contrast campaigns. Half the time you don’t know what they will do once they’re in. It’s either they are for or against something… ok, but if they are “for” something, what exactly will they do in contrast? :think: (Hint: Specifics and political campaigns don’t exactly go together)

You can go to campaign events, and sometimes you will get very helpful information… on the other hand, you may at best obtain a veneer or just a mirroring of one's party positions. From a digital perspective, in the recent election I looked at the website of each member on every ticket (of which there were numerous)… very few had websites setup (unheard of in this age of digital literacy). Of the ones that were functioning and had the actual positions, most had maybe only a handful of major positions they were running on. Most matched the general party platform. No need to see the website. :shrug:

Most American news is contrast-based as well, so you can get a reasonable idea of the differences of platforms from not only watching the news over the years, but past experience as it relates to those issues... which I argue has far more power in someone's vote rather than political talking points… even if the individual candidates themselves are not cited, in practice it is true that parties stick together...

In terms of facts and actual helpful information: I argue 1st hand knowledge or otherwise having been around people in the community who have dealt with these issues face to face have more effect on a vote than the media or a candidacy. Again, this is local, but in Texas, in our local communities, many people associate or socialize with some sort of thought group who subscribes to certain beliefs and they will have conversations or talk about local events and how it affects them. Often times, especially at work, and especially in my field and my husband’s… we know many people who deal in politics. Many know a neighbor in the city who is active or has had access to this anecdotal knowledge. So that is where they get their research to some degree... which is these conversations that happen more frequently here than many places. So in how things are really managed. This is the valuable information that most people consider most helpful to deciding their vote… is usually based on a lifetime of experiences, anecdotal experiences, cumulative sources in the news (through years of watching and reading) and having seen other campaigns occasionally and listening to spokespeople/sheriffs/other major political figures talk on the news... this decides their POV for the most part. Having looked at many platforms, I can say this would not change had they seen all their websites and positions... as most don't feel their vote will be earth-shattering and in their minds, they would rather they vote in a way it counted. Straight ticket for some... or based on contrast and compare campaigns.

It’s not helpful to know the policy positions of a candidate, as you don’t really understand the cause and effect of said policies without first hand experience in knowing how those policies can have a positive/negative effect so you can ask penetrating questions to the candidate on how they would choose to implement it (if you can get a straight forward answer)…

For example, I know locally we had a sheriff who ran on fiscal responsibility… that was his platform. He made the numbers look “right”, but in actuality he was bleeding the department dry and the workforce that was bled as a result of the mismanagement has accumulated after every single bid to now a watershed. Though, you can’t see this without having that first hand knowledge. Most people get the facade, and because people here know talk is cheap, this is more relevant to them than talking points.

So I think that many people vote a straight ticket for numerous reasons and for the most part, I think they are sound reasons. Though I disagree with this method, we are fairly well versed in party politics and it makes sense from the perspective of the cynical American voter. It’s not so simple to say “How dare they not know every individual in govt”, they are uninformed!... however, they may pay attention the party or platforms that are in place… which tbqf, have a lot more individual influence than the running of our country, even in our local council… as our govt is meant to function with party control now, as an intertwined machine and not so much focus on the individual.

Even if you vote in a wildcard candidate, it’s hard to see what you would get from this as 1) That person could fail to have influence where you want it overall because of red tape (due to party control/gerrymandering) and 2) Running this sort of campaign is fiscally and emotionally expensive, so it would be hard for them to get re-elected without a spotlight… so what often happens is people look at the opposing well-known party candidate… well, he often takes positions you dislike even more (which both parties are schitzophrenic, value-wise to each other)… so you’re in a catch 22. Either way you lose.

Most positions where I looked at individually, there wasn’t really any viable opposition (no websites, no campaign, hardly visible on google… :shrug: … so better to be informed about the party’s activities at the local level (which many people are), rather than the individual candidates. For example, in Houston I am fine with the blue candidates in social positions or running the city (mayor) –as long as they don’t bankrupt the city :laugh:… but in places like the jail, where I know there has been rampant mismanagement by Team blue, I vote red. I also vote red on justices because I believe in the death penalty, but a hand slap. When I’ve looked at the individual websites for these individuals… pretty much all typical party positions. Occasionally, they had some individual focuses on things such “well we’d like to do this to limit this”… but those are rare and honestly, unless I am well-versed in the way that system works (would have to spend all day learning about how courts handle cases as if I’m to become paralegal), I have no way of verifying whether this is a good policy/platform, etc…

Anyway, most Americans are very cynical and fickle voters. Though admittedly, the US’ voting base is quite apathetic compared to other 1st world countries… I think last election was a record low in fact. Still, we’re only concerned here about actual voters and I think that you’re missing the forest for the trees. Most of our politics is a domino effect, is becoming as complicated as our tax code (thanks to injecting social issues in every candidacy…even railroad commissioner :laugh: ) … at the base of it, if it’s not about how you think a sheriff should be a sheriff (if you know nothing about being a LEO), as much as it’s about what effects you in particular and for most voters, that’s what they care about… so why stress the minutia? It’s easier in those cases for most people to vote party than to pretend as if they understand how a railroad works, etc. If people are unhappy of the state of their community, whether there is word of mouth (positive or not) or there being major issues that need to be addressed… aside from platforms, that voter's enthusiasm is going to shift one way or another. However, that’s how most people get their information—is word of mouth and by following the local media and current events in some form. So I think ill-informed—yes—but really, it depends on what it is… and how much does it really even matter to you and I when our government is a two party system that favors the elite?

Cockwomble... it just rolls off the tongue :laugh:... (omg, that sounded really dirty :facepalm:)

:laugh: It's a mutually beneficial GOOD thing - this relationship between us on this side of the 'pond' and you on the other, don't you think Maru?

You give us eloquent and comprehensive insights into the American way of life and politics, and in exchange, we give you the word 'Cockwomble'. :laugh:

Keep posting. I love reading them.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: And add to those excellent valid reasons, the direct personal experience over decades, of we 'older' members, of one revelation after another about how corrupt and wasteful the EU is, and how we witnessed the decimation of our Farming and Fishing industries, and how increasingly became the realisation, that we were receiving negative ROI's - Return on Our Investment - as far as all those hundreds of billions of pounds of tax-payers hard earned money which was used to pay our membership of the Brussels scamfest, and a thousand other reasons.

..I think that we're (voters that is..)..are all informed as much as we feel we need to be informed or can be because it's so often the case as well that people effected most with any government in many countries etc are those whose lives are quite a struggle anyway.../struggling with low incomes../with cost of living rises and worrying how they'll manage../with families and needs that have to be met etc...these are always the people to worry about most I think so obviously would want to feel confidently 'informed' in their voting decisions and what things would mean to them but then that's conflicted though with the time that many have available to inform themselves, so a bit of a catch really...working/looking after families/working out how to make it all work and add up etc...so yeah, information to inform is always available but not always able to be sought.../I think it can also work the other way though as well and being 'too informed' and equally as confusing in making decisions because it's such an overload and over-thinking and over-thinking and etc...anyway, democracy never required informed, it just requited a vote so even the smallest of reasons for a vote of whatever has to be equally valid...

...anyways with both Brexit and Trump, I think the similarity has been that because they're both essentially votes for 'different', there hasn't really been that much to inform as such, it's more 'potentially' of an unknown...all theory really...with Brexit, yeah we have been outside the EU before../not always a part of but we can't discount the years we have been in it so it's still a complete unknown at the present so, so much less to inform really of our future etc...and the same with Trump, he's not a politician in the sense that the world has ever known, so in his role/his history that would be appropriate etc../very little to inform...I think for me a big part with both is what the effect and the positive effect for those very people who would struggle to inform themselves because of the general struggle of their lives...and also before any paths can go forward, things that appear to have been more brought to the surface do need validation and addressing I think...Trump really as a lot of work and actions to do now with so many of his prejudiced and yes, racist comments because once something is out there, it can't be taken back but can 'cause' so much damage, it became out of his control in what was incited in others..(some others obviously, whose own thoughts and feelings felt 'fed' by this powerful figure..)...Trump contributed../Trump is president elect/Trump has to address and take his responsibility...no matter what percentage it is because he has promoted intolerance and that can't be acceptable no matter what the political beliefs...it's okay to be seen with the 'important' people of the world as he sees them but the important people really are much closer to home and right under his nose and the ones he should be focusing on really...

"Trump is president elect."

Yes Teacher Ammi
and he had the Leader of Japan
in his Real Gold Trump Tower,yesterday,
a first.

But clever of Japan to do a private Deal
before he is in office.


Yes Ammi
DEAL

Teach your Blighters
DEALS

That Japan Leader said it was Positive


Life In The City.