3 ms·

> too stupid > hordes of idiots This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're saying that 51% of Britons (or voting Britons) are "a horde of stupid idiots" t

by basseq 10y ago

> too stupid > hordes of idiots This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're saying that 51% of Britons (or voting Britons) are "a horde of stupid idiots" that are swayed by money spent on advertisements. Note that this also implies that the "smart people" on the "right" side haven't thought about running persuasive advertisements? Or can't do so effectively? If idiots are so easily swayed--and not only swayed, but swayed to vote against their own interests--shouldn't it be easy to get them to vote your way instead?

whamlastxmas 10y ago
They are easily swayed, if you have a lot of money. Which is why we see such strong pro-corporatism is nearly every level of government regardless of political party. There is not much money to be had in pro-socialist, anti-war, pro-voter initiatives, which is why they get so little traction and have such low amounts of money available for advertising etc. Also, not saying 51% are idiots. Firstly, I am impartial to the Brexit vote and have no opinion on it. Secondly, you don't need 51% idiots, you only need enough idiots to change the result of the election, sometimes less than a percentage point.
- basseq 10y ago
  Yet in the Brexit case, there was a ton of money on the Remain side, too. So...
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    How does that invalidate anything I said? All it really points out is that both sides had lots of money invested, and one of the sides didn't get the anticipated outcome. This happens every election in the US due to the two party system.
    - tomp 10y ago
      So you're saying that both Remain and Leave winning would support your theory? This means your theory has no value... Look, it's really simple. People are only "easily" swayed because they have limited choice (and, even these two choices are usually the same, unless they're Trump, Bernie or Corbyn). UK and US are structured so that two parties dominate; many other countries have a multi-party system, so people can have their voices heard even by voting a non-winning party.

by basseq 10y ago

whamlastxmas 10y ago

They are easily swayed, if you have a lot of money. Which is why we see such strong pro-corporatism is nearly every level of government regardless of political party. There is not much money to be had in pro-socialist, anti-war, pro-voter initiatives, which is why they get so little traction and have such low amounts of money available for advertising etc. Also, not saying 51% are idiots. Firstly, I am impartial to the Brexit vote and have no opinion on it. Secondly, you don't need 51% idiots, you only need enough idiots to change the result of the election, sometimes less than a percentage point.

basseq 10y ago
Yet in the Brexit case, there was a ton of money on the Remain side, too. So...
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  How does that invalidate anything I said? All it really points out is that both sides had lots of money invested, and one of the sides didn't get the anticipated outcome. This happens every election in the US due to the two party system.
  - tomp 10y ago
    So you're saying that both Remain and Leave winning would support your theory? This means your theory has no value... Look, it's really simple. People are only "easily" swayed because they have limited choice (and, even these two choices are usually the same, unless they're Trump, Bernie or Corbyn). UK and US are structured so that two parties dominate; many other countries have a multi-party system, so people can have their voices heard even by voting a non-winning party.