General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 153

The UK is almost certainly going to disintegrate, Brits are quickly going to realize they took the economic and diplomatic benefits of the EU for granted, xenophobia will elevate, Boris Johnson is almost certainly going to be the next PM, and it bodes poorly for the American election. I would say it's not great.

 

I think this might be a little hysterical don't you? I can promise you that the UK is over 300 years old and will be able to withstand and recover from any fallout that may come from separation from the EU.

 

Nicola Sturgeon announces plans for second Scottish independence referendum after UK votes for Brexit

Both Ireland and Scotland firmly were in the Remain camp.

 

They should have another referendum! If the people of Scotland would prefer to separate from the UK and remain in the EU they should absolutely hold a vote.

 

Yah so just to be clear that's what I mean by UK disintegrating. Scotland and Ireland are gonna splinter off

 

The Socialist Case for Leave | Jacobin
The Socialist Case for Remain | Jacobin

Interesting reads.

 

Admittedly I come from being squarely "remain," but economists pretty much universally support staying citing economic downturn and the party behavior supporting Leave has been pretty obviously awful, racist, and even terroristic in the case of the assassination of Jo Cox

 

Oh I apologize, I thought you were meant the more hyperbolic meaning of the word, like the UK would become some post-apocalyptic wasteland or something haha.

 

Nigel Farage is already walking back the campaign promise that the 350 million pounds Britain paid the EU would go to the NHS. What a prat

 

Not to mention the "victory with not a single bullet fired" line from his victory speech barely a week after Jo Cox's assassination. Disgusting.

 

That was long established to be a lie.

 

I know the 350 figure was determined to be totally misleading a while ago, but this is the first theyve openly reneged it, and afaik Johnson is still promising it. Not that it mattered once it wormed into public thought

 

On the "hysterical" claim earlier, Scotland is as good as gone, and apparently even fucking Ireland is talking reunification and secession

 

Spencer clarified his meaning and I clarified mine.

 

Yah the person who said it was hysterical clarified they thought I meant violent crises rather than secession fwiw

 

close. I don't think it gets any better by cutting the salary. Look at all the people leaving the hill because of the recent changes to insurance.

To me their pay doesn't have anything to do with that. That's what they said to get elected so we shouldn't be surprised by their actions.

In my personal experience with part time versus full time legislators, I would much rather have someone who can solely dedicate themselves to governing. I think that requires a reasonable salary given the expenses and location.

Besides, I have a genuine problem with saying we don't like their choices so let's make changes to the job. Make changes to the job (responsibilities, pay, benefits, etc) because it structurally makes sense. If you don't like the quality of the person in that job you fire them.

We should be encouraging public service and part of the way you do that is through reasonable salary.

 

Reasonable salary is one thing (and I don't necessarily disagree with you, Lauren) but we also basically use taxpayer money for Congress members to fundraise for their parties, instead of legislating

 

Well, yeah, but that's why you change campaign finance laws.

 

It is a microcosm of what is wrong with the way pay and benefits are distributed. That is to say, legislating in this era is less of a job, and more related to efforts of fundraising. People understand that. The question that arises for the average person who has to work and perform, yet isn't even getting a living wage, is why should they get paid this amount of money and have the sort of privileges they have? You may say fire them, but the rate of re-election is ninety-six percent and a lot of that has to do with money, how districts are structured and things of that nature, which obstruct change by design. Cutting their wages isn't the sole thing we should do, though I think that is significant in terms of eliminating the protective bubble they find themselves in when the rest of the country is experiencing hardships. I think there needs to be more accountability in terms of being able to have no confidence votes, breaking up districts equitably, etc.

 

Can someone explain, in a hypothetical future where Trump is president, what happens to his company and assets? They go into a blind trust or something like that, right? I don't see that sitting well with him.

 

And who is the "you" in this sentence?

 

He wouldn't have to do anything, he would technically be able to run his business while serving as President.

 

The people it would effect the most. But, this is why we need to vote, even for shitty people, because it matters or something.

 

The people who sit on their ass and complain about things like campaign finance and how congress just spends their time raising money, but then doesn't vote in elections.

Oh and the people that we want to vote themselves a lower salary...even though we mock the idea of them changing campaign finance.

 

I'm definitely voting for Jill Stein this year. But, I guess that doesn't count? I don't know how moralistic reasoning goes, so I'm at a loss as to whether voting in itself matters or voting for the right person is the truly consequential thing to do.