Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy. (Politics General)

@Genevamode
 
I call it a duty to be reminded.
 
@Ainz Ooal Gown
 
Blackmailing? Sure….
 
 
You know what, you two? You keep saying nice little words. But none of you said anything about 35 years of economical profiting. You know what? I don’t care. As long as you keep calling “unfair, unfair” but don’t respond to the fact, that the benefit is always greater than the disadvantage, I won’t reply. Because literally there is nothing I can say anyome. You keep ignoring the fact, that Ireland and France are some of the biggest beneficiaries of the EU now (2016). So, what’s your point?
 
“Meh, we were forced, meh…” Maybe we should talk about UK or US forcing other countries to their bidding. At least the EU gives something back. ;-)

@DarkObsidian  
I’m saying that it doesn’t matter whether they are beneficiaries. A vote is a vote, and shouldn’t be nullified. Now you’re dredging up the past about UK and others forcing others to do their bidding? Do we really have to go there?

This is all sorts of stupid
 

@The Smiling Pony  
Agreed. That’s retarded.

@Genevamode
 
A vote is nothing final. If there is a chance to revise the election result, then it is a basic democratic act. Whether you like it or not.

@Genevamode  

That’s exactly what politics is. Things that get voted down get altered and are put to vote again time and time again, some times fairly quickly, some times years later.
 
Countries and states, their people and parliaments, have in the past firmly voted against gay marriage or racial equality or legalizing weed or whatever. Then the times change and they revote. Or the proposal goes back, gets some amendments, and gets voted on again.
 
Sarkozy being an ass, one that didn’t get his way, is another matter entirely.

@The Smiling Pony  
Yes, but there should at least be a reasonably long period of time between votes so people can’t just immediately call for a second referendum to overturn a vote they don’t like. Otherwise you’re just going to keep going back and forth on the same issue forever.

@Genevamode  
The proposal was amended, why wait? That happens all the time in parliaments; a proposal for yearly financing gets shot down, it goes back for a week or two to make amendments to appease enough of the “no” voters, it gets voted on again. Waiting just delays things for no reason.

@DarkObsidian  
If you just revised every election you didn’t like you would never stop having referendums on the same thing. It wouldn’t go anywhere. Imagine if the conservatives who lost the abortion referendum in Ireland demanded another referendum so they could get the result they wanted, and they won the next referendum (somehow, it wouldn’t happen IRL), and then the other side tries the same thing, ad infinitum.

@Genevamode  
When a result is as narrow as 45-55 or the like, it certainly makes sense to see if an amended proposal can sway people over. Otherwise it’s like going to a restaurant with friends and not ordering anything because every plate has some little thing you don’t want, when you can very easily just ask the waiter to hold on the garlic or change it for onions.

@The Smiling Pony  
45-55 isn’t a small margin. It’s a 10% difference, that’s quite reasonable. If it was 2% or 1% you might have a fair point. What’s the turnout of voters though? That’s important. Also, the analogy of the restaurant only makes sense if you and all your friends are eating the same thing. Otherwise, everybody just orders what they want, how they want it.

@Genevamode
 
BS. First of all, votes aren’t cheap. There is a limit. Second, at least in democracies you have legislature periods. No elected government can afford to go back and forth as long as it has to fear the consequences at the next election. So, what you’re saying is just common denial. Literally ignoring how the EU works. Maye you should do a little research on European policies, government structures and basic diplomacy. I’m sorry, if it looks like I’m cocky, but seriously, I think it would help. Just my personal point of view, of course. Feel free to ignore it.

@Genevamode  
The analogy infers both that since you aren’t ordering, no one else would (and you’d all waste time going somewhere else), and that you yourself are denying yourself a meal over a minor issue that can be easily changed.
 
And 10% is a small enough margin if you can identify points that that 10% or more would agree on and don’t compromise the issue.

@DarkObsidian  
There may very well be a limit, but why should the outcome of an election be decided by the number of votes by which you run out of money to keep voting? That’s not exactly a fair way to do it. Outcomes should not be based on who wins by the time you run out of money to vote. It would make more sense to just have one vote and be done with the issue until ten or so years later.
 
 
@The Smiling Pony  
So everyone is eating the same thing then? I don’t think this analogy really fits with the idea of repeatedly having referendums on things. In a vote, one side wins and the other(s) lose(s), in a restaurant you either decide what everybody eats or you just eat separate different meals. I might just be dense, but I don’t understand what you’re getting at here.

@Genevamode  
The point is these things are dropped on people in bulk, with a yes or no choice. If there’s something in that bulk that’s minor and can be changed without having a major effect that would make the bulk more agreeable to the majority, why deny doing that?
 
More food. You’re a single person ordering pizza; the one you sort of like has olives, and you don’t like olives. Do you: A- not order pizza at all; or B- Ask if you can have the olives removed, or even changed for peppers?

@The Smiling Pony  

 
Nobody accused them of being smart.

@Violet Rose in The Rain  
In fairness, I do remember something about some faux-wiccan LARPers casting a “binding spell” on Trump. It wasn’t real witchcraft though because there’s no such thing. This NRA ad is therefore either hyperbolic or subtly taking the piss. Probably the former.

@Genevamode  

Why? Why wait 10+ years when the people proposing the vote can just change minor points or compromise on issues to please more voters?
 
Scenario A: Vote to pass health insurance reform fails because of a single minor point barely related to health insurance. Wait ten years to revote. Hundreds of thousands suffer without health insurance, many die, many end in poverty paying to save their lives.
 
Scenario B: Vote to pass health insurance reform fails because of a single minor point barely related to health insurance. The point is amended without having any major effect on the proposal. It’s voted on again a month later and passes. Ten years later all those people that would have suffered, died, or landed in poverty due to a poor law, didn’t.

@Violet Rose in The Rain  
@Genevamode  
It’s facebook “Share” bait; get people to ridicule democrats/liberals/gun control advocates by blowing up some randos being cute with their harmless activism. This sort of garbage will barrel through facebook and the like and be used as an “example” of what the people that oppose better gun control are “really” like.

@The Smiling Pony  
Well if all you’re doing is tweaking stuff it would make sense, but over here with our Brexit referendum you have people actively campaigning to overturn the entire result.

@Genevamode  
IMO a difference of less than 4% on such a major issue shouldn’t have been accepted in the first place; I know that for dumb pony shit on the site I’ve enforced a 60% minimum rule for content changes (that, for the record, “my side” lost even having a simple majority), I’d expect a slight bit more rigour over an issue that majorly affects the lives of millions.
 
Anyway brexit has the kicker that a fair deal of the propaganda for it was outright lies and fabrication, and the subsequent handling by May’s cabinet has been embarrassingly bad and exposed a number of negative issues that were never considered in the first place.
 
It’d be interesting to get a good opinion poll on the issue now, and to see what people think in ~8 years once all is (mostly) settled.

@The Smiling Pony  
>witchcraft vs education  
why not both?  
Oh and Comey is a fucking Hillshill. In addition just because you don’t like an article’s headline DOES NOT Make it bait.

@The Smiling Pony  
Well if you weren’t to accept the vote, you would have essentially given the referendum to the 48%, who were in the minority. There was no choice but to proceed. In black-and-white “leave or stay”, you either side with the majority or the minority.
 
As for “propaganda”, need I remind you that the UK government used taxpayer money to push for remain? Both sides are guilty. Not only that, but anybody could claim the other side is lying. If we are going to be overturning referendums at the first cry of “foul play”, then nothing would ever pass because the losing side would cry wolf to veto it.

Just because something is in the category of propaganda does not mean its automatically false and/or fallacious.

America has never been truly free. It’s always been a depraved country. Where the cruelest of the cruel can be adored and glorified if they got the money, power, or serve the establishment. Nuking Japanese civilians, stealing Native American children, internment camps, slavery, genocide, and more and more. So when you see these concentration camps for children you should be outraged, but not surprised. And don’t think Democrats are perfect, but I have to support them to an extent because of the far greater evil: the GOP. The GOP is the greatest enemy America faces. Yes, even more than terrorists (though terrorists and Republicans are not mutually exclusive groups, and the GOP does a lot of things to terrorize people). The GOP actually has the political power in America to destroy/pervert the entire country. And besides, they don’t have a damn clue (or choose to pretend not to know) how to deal with the problem of terrorism. They think they can torture away the problem.