#VoteTory

Ty men.

ahh cool ty for the answer. i got the feeling that the only thing the Scottish can all agree on is "do not make eye contact with the street homeless". so that makes sense. it was funny to see lunchbreak taking adults in George's Square all just ignoring the kids stomping around and screaming fuck this and that.

One can argue that capitalism is the major driver of climate change, and the biggest obstacle to climate policies. Getting rid of capitalism would do more for the climate than all the carbon taxes and emission rights trading or all the pushing for electric cars and renewables. So in this sense, I think it does make sense for true far-lefties to demand a revolutionized economy as the first step.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Dec 12 2019 10:41am

i quite agree. especially when u look at conglomerates of corporations being responsible for almost all global emissions. people often ask "how will u get china and india to comply" when they should be asking if Nestle will comply.

logically it checks out, its just different than USA due to no binary.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 12 2019 10:43am

wut. nope.

I think they have some kind of a whole program for homeless, something unique and advanced.

I think the major difference is that the UK contains plenty of people with true leftist stances on economic policy. In the U.S., most economic discussions revolve around big vs small government, not around things like the property situation or the social question. Class struggle and things like that are often phrased in racialized terms and thus taken out of the realm of pure economic policy. Consequently, climate protest in the U.S. is mostly driven by rich, privileged, college-educated whites who are capitalists at heart, just with a preference for big government policies. There just arent that many "true" far-leftists or socialists in the U.S.

Glasgow had so many homeless u couldnt walk a block anywhere near George's Square without almost tripping over 5 of them.

Edinburgh had some homeless but not as many. and of course Inverness had virtually no homeless, i saw only 2 in the entire city.

from what i was told they get food stamps and dont starve, but beg for booze. and was told only americans give them money for the most part.

Let me quote you again: "the only thing the Scottish can all agree on is "do not make eye contact with the street homeless""

=> They have a poverty but they have some unique program for homeless, it's unique in Europe.

On the other hand they have a more serious overdose problem. Nearly the same as US ! Sad.

the only thing the Scottish can all agree on is "do not make eye contact with the street homeless" was a joke. on the flight over multiple brits/scots gave me this advice and on the streets people bustle right by them without making any eye contact.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 12 2019 12:02pm

in practice this might turn out to be true, but logically and theoretically it's complete horseshit. it might be a popular narrative with those who fear a second referendum, but a general election is not a one issue decision, even though brexit is obviously a central one for this one, i'd give you that.

however, it is not at all clear what exactly a vote for any specific party entails in terms of hard / soft / no brexit, at best it's a soft-ish support for the current party leadership's stance on it.
in order to make your 'built-in second referendum' claim even somewhat fair, you'd have to count the votes, and not just MPs, you'd also have to pool all parties that don't support johnson's plan, including a percentage of tory votes to account for conservative MPs that actually support a second referendum.
just claiming that a failure to stop the tories from "winning A majority" implies a confirmation of whatever is the current pary head's interpretation of the first referendum is simply absurd. it's incredibly dishonest, ignorant to how general elections in the UK work, and stupidly biased - so i guess i shouldn't be surprised that you fully bought into it.

a second referendum would not be 'changing the rules', that's just lazy logic. there simply is no clear 'outcome' that has to be 'protected', otherwise we wouldn't have seen the brits struggle for years to even decide what they bring to the negotiations with the EU. if anything, the fact that it IS such a "monumental" decision supports the need for a more specific exploration as to what the people actually want, especially considering how much more clear the realistic options are now, how insane some of the campaign promises were. and believe me, i hate to be making the case for this, i supported a hard brexit from day one.