Ten oz

Corbyn is the opposition leader and said it while seated in Parliament. Of course it was plastered all over the paper. Had he been alone in his living room no one would have seen or cared. Corbyn is a public figure by profession and was in public when the comment was made. Media picking it up goes without saying. From what I have read members of Parliament took offense " The video of the remark, made after May’s final exchange with the Labour leader, spread like wildfire among Tory MPs even as May continued to answer questions in the House of Commons. As the Tories grew more incensed, several MPs, including the Commons leader, Andrea Leadsom, accused Bercow himself of using the same term, prompting an angry backlash from the Speaker. Link". In the time sense countless op-ed have been written outlining why it's offensive. So it upset people on the floor in Parliament well as constituents of those in Parliament. All politicians have opposition. This is Corbyn's chosen career. He is free to return to the private sector if he doesn't want the public to pay attention to what he says.

AOC is just one of 435 members of Congress. Her district is not a competitive one for Conservatives. AOC is a junior member without any meaningful influence over committees in Congress. The only reason Conservative waste time talking her is because she is popular and they (Conservatives), as opposition, just want to dull up some of her shine. AOC says nothing which is outside the normal margins of error for a political. AOC is simply popular and well like by her constituents and Conservatives can't have that so they attack her at every chance they get. Currently the govt is shut down. The country is without a Sec.of Defense, without a Attorney General, and with a Chief of Staff. No amount of complaining about AOC makes a bit of difference to the current challenges we (USA) face. If AOC disappeared tomorrow the govt would still be shutdown. AOC is not important.

I think the anonymity provided by the internet is the only reason this conversation persists. I find it very difficult to believe in real life anyone here would argue about the definition of "woman", their intentions, or etc in person if confront by someone claiming offense. In real life when someone points out offensive language or claims offense to sensible thing to do is apologize and move on. Individuals who are too disagreeable to do so generally do not make it very far within a career or anything else which involves any level of interaction with others. When someone says they are offended it is best to just accept that they are. Talking them out of it is not a good idea. In practice I believe everyone in this discussions understand that. Corbyn's failure to just apologize and move on exacerbated the issue. I doubt it would have been that big a deal had Corbyn handled it with more humility. He had a stupid moment. Rather than allowing that stupid moment to become a war over the use of language and the state of gender equality Corbyn should have just acknowledged error. Every hill isn't worth dying on.

@Raider5678, so we are a year on from when you created this thread to address Trump's tax plan. The annual deficit rose 17% in 2018. That was anticipated to some extent but the claim was that increases in GDP would offset the spend. However the deficit rose against GDP as well up to levels not seen since 2012 when we were still coming out of a depression. How is a link from Treasury Department. Stock market had its worst year since the economic collapse 10yrs ago. All major index's were down for the year, Link. This not only hurts businesses but many average peope have their retirements savings in 401k's and other market associated accounts. People lost trillions in 2018. After starting down in the first quarter GDP was up around 2014 levels in the 2nd and 3rd quarters. Here are the final numbers for the first 3 quarters from Dept. of Commerce . Estimates for the 4th quarter are low, Link. Trump promised 6% GDP when Congress was writing up his for his plan. GDP for the year was only 3%. So a year later and deficits are up, the stock market is down, and GDP is flat. Do you feel the tax cut was worthwhile?

No I do not. I already outlined my thoughts regarding a super majority in my response to J.C.. Ultimately I feel Democracies should strive to stay current and hold votes cyclically. When Obama passed the ACA in 2010 it received 60 votes in the Senate. That was a super majority. Can you imagine how the minority party would have felt if that vote were final and nothing after it could have been changed? Rather the ACA wouldn't go into effect until after the 2012 election. Republicans had both the mid term and a general election to try and beat it. I believe on some level there was something cathartic about that process. Today the ACA has never been more popular and Republicans no longer want it gone. We are past repeal and replace. I think in the case of Brexit there is enough outliers that those who opposed Brexit have legitimate reasons to feel cheated. I am not saying they were cheated just that I can see why one would feel they might've been. Lies, Russia interference, an apathetic belief going in the Brexit vote would fail, and etc. It isn't healthy in my opinion to force a nation to live with a single vote when large portions of the population remain passionate about the issue. People want to be heard and win or lose elections allow people to be heard. There should just be another vote.

Saying everyone lies benefits the biggest liars the most. The degree to which dishonesty exists within any campaign various greatly. The fact that dishonest might always be perceived on some level is not a good reason to do nothing when it is rife. Then there is that matter of Russian interference. It is a fact they supported Brexit on social media using fake accounts to spread disinformation. You have dismissed their impact but how can you possibly know for sure? If there is a chance that a foreign adversary successfully influenced the Brexit vote shouldn't that be treated seriously?

The discussion you and I were having was reasonably cordial. Some speculation about different elections systems which could be theoretically used but we both still rendered opinion/thoughts on Brexit and its future. Raider jumped in and challenged me on an arbitrary number without rendering any thoughts towards Brexit whatsoever. His post was purely a challenge of my skepticism of a theoretical situation. Posts like that, where individuals begin challenging each other over things superfluous to a thread's topic, are how thread get derailed. It seems you and I more or less agree regarding Brexit I think.

But it didn't. Your 10% is arbitrary. The statistics I have referred in other political threads deals with party leanings here in the U.S.. The Brexit vote was outside of a standard election cycle, the UK isn't staunchly married to a 2 party system the way the U.S. is, and voter turnout is constantly higher in the U.K. than it is in the U.S.. I do not know how another Brexit vote would go. I have not studied election trends for the U.K.. I think another vote is fair. As mentioned here in the U.S. we get a chance every 2yrs to vote. When the ACA passed Republicans had the mid term to get people in place to throttle it and then the general election in 12' get rid of Obama and repeal it before it went into effect. Republicans weren't success but they were given a democratic chance.

Only time will tell. Thus far Paul Ryan controlled the budgets Trump has been operating on. Paul Ryan is gone.This summer Pelosi will be overseeing the creation of the 2020 budget. Trump got tax cuts, DOD increase, DHS increase, cuts to ACA funding, Cuts to assistance programs, and etc with relative easy under Paul Ryan. For 2020's budget everything will be a negotiation and I don't know if you've noticed but Trump throws tantrums when he negotiates.

I assume nothing. I said it is a 2 million shift in who is voting. I said nothing about how they'd vote. Just that it would be different people voting. Also Brexit didn't pass by 10%. It passed by less than 4%, just under 1.3 million votes. The 10% you reference is an arbitrary number that has no actual impact on Brexit. If you feel a Brexit vote would go the exact same way if held again in 2019 as it went in 2016 that what would it it to hold another vote?

No, I am also worried about 2020's budget. The Federal budget runs October through September. The budget we are currently shutdown over was is a stopgap budget written by Congress when Republicans still controlled the House. The govt is shut down for a record breaking amount of time and this budget was done up by those from Trump's own party. It only gets uglier from here. The govt hasn't even been open since Democrats took the House. This summer when 2020's budget is being written I expect things to be considerably worse than they are now and another shutdown in September is nearly a certainty. How this one ends will impact the tone of the next one 8 months from now. Trump has already move the goal posts so far from the days of leading chants that Mexico will pay for the Wall that anyone still with obvious doesn't about what actually ends up happening. They are just along for the ride.

Over 500,000 people die per year in the UK and just as many become eligible to vote for the first time. So that alone could be over a 2 million person shift in who is voting since 2016. Only a total of 33 million people participated in the Brexit vote. Just that 2 million due to age and mortality is over 6%.

My thought on the points listed in the Article: "First, most experts on immigration agree that the wall will not solve any of the problems cited by Trump." - Trump is lying about many of the problems and his base doesn't care. Reality or the situation at the border doesn't factor into this much. "Second, the wall will be extremely expensive." - Trump led his supporters in chants that Mexico would pay for the wall and now that he is demanding tax prayer float the bill his base remains in place. Trump supporters do not seem care how much it costs or who pays. "A third point is that the wall will probably never be completed" - of course not as a physical structure but as a symbol it can be. "The fourth problem is the question of who will build the wall" - Trump more the goal posts constantly. Who is to say his Wall would be a Wall or even a fence? Trump might use the 5.7 billion dollars in armed drones, claim victory, and say armed drones are better than any Wall. Asking who would pay for the Wall naively assumes the Wall is a tangible thing Trump gives 2 sh!ts about.

Even with a something like a 67-75% majority the change is permanent. Another 67-75% majority in the future can come along and amend things. It isn't and in my opinion shouldn't ever be sealed in stone. That would require a second vote. In which case I might be for it.

I don't think that would be any better. Even is a referendum were to pass with 60% support that doesn't speak to how people might feel years later. Here in the U.S. (not the perfect model) every 2yrs we have Congressional elections. There is some ability to throttle those previously elected if things aren't going as hoped. Obama was very popular in 2008 but concerns over Healthcare and Immigration enabled opposition to win seats 2yrs later in 2010 and subvert some of his agenda. Likewise Trump won in 2016 but 2yrs on his opposition now has the ability to limit his influence. I don't think politics should be a winner takes all sort of thing. In sports for example teams are only the champions for a season and then they must begin again. Each new season provides all teams a chance. If a team remains strong they might win the championship a few seasons in a row but it is never a sure thing. Likewise in politics one leader, one party, or one referendum shouldn't be absolute. Democracies are meant to be responsive to their people. Otherwise what is the point of letting people vote at all. Telling people they must stick with something they no long want because 2yrs ago enough of a majority did doesn't seem very responsive. The only way to check the pulse of the people is to have another. I don't understand what is at risk by having another. Nothing is forever. Win or lose in the future politicians can and will continue to fight this issue. Holding a vote today simply ensure that for today Politicians are getting it right. If need be another vote can be held years done the road again. I doubt anyone on this forum will ever out live elections in their country.

Are you saying you feel the referendum should require a supermajority ?

How does this apply to Brexit?

As an edit to my above post there are currently 5 candidates announced and 4 are women.

Here is the U.S. there is a common political phrase used when people advocate for something which might be against the best interest of the country in the name of respecting the law; "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" . I think marching on with policy which possible is not longer favored years later so to honor an initial vote is a suicide pact of sorts. It has been over 2yrs and having another vote is possible. It isn't as though Brexit won by wide margins. It was a close election. Moreover things have been discovered and are better understood today than during the first vote. I understand the concern that holding a second vote could create a precedent for redoing every close election but this is 2yrs later and unlike most elections which have cyclical schedules Brexit was a one of. So there wouldn't be a precedent set for cyclical elections and what precedent might be set for one off elections would have a multi year buffer which seem amicable to me in anyway.

Considering all the women who were elected in 2018 I think there is a lot of energy currently among voters who want to see equal representation. Of the 4 candidates who have already announced they are running 3 are women. My whole life I have heard people on all sides insist that the country was willing to elect a woman yet it has never happened. I hope Democrats nominates a woman for 2020. Two highly qualified Senators are already running. It is difficult for me to imagine Booker, Biden, or anyone else still expected to possibly announce have a platform with any meaningful differences than Harris or Warren.

AOC isn't running in the Democratic Primary.

Pretty pathetic that Disaster relief and protection for women from violence are treated as fair trade from the Right for Trump to have his Wall. Both seem like things the govt should absolutely be doing regardless.

AOC isn't running in the Democratic Primary. There are lessons Democratic candidates in the primary can take away from the way AOC manges social media and stays engaged with her supporters but specific discussion about AOC alone absent of a Democratic Primary connection is off topic.

If the majority still supports Brexit they would still be able to have it via another vote. In lieu of all that has happened to since the initial vote I think another would go smart. Measure twice and cut once.

I am not familiar with that exact qoute but it I can see it. We all get technical facts wrong from time to time but that doesn't necessarily undermine the larger context of what we might being saying. Which facts one gets wrong, why, and to what end all matters. Being technically wrong about a gun violence stat because I rounded a number up wouldn't have any significant impact on my views about gun violence overall. Moving into the Primary I think the more successful candidates will be the ones who best stay on message and avoid getting sucked into lengthy discussions about peripheral technicalities. Opposition will always attack. It is the nature of the beast. Some of the attacks will be grounded in some truth and some won't. All the time a candidate spends addressing their opposition the aren't talking about their platform.