NEVER BUY MAXIM

They have never limited themselves to running their own country. Everything they do internally supports what they do externally.

Must be weird to live in a world where the glomping ol' Clintons are actually master assassins and meanwhile nominate and elect a guy you wouldn't trust to sell you a reliable used car President.

I wouldn't trust him to buy real estate from and I wouldn't trust him with a bunch of classified information, either, just because he's able to formulate numerous English-sounding phrases which might appeal to my jingoism and American-sized ego. Yeah, also this lady at a gentleman's club one time, she told me she liked me as a person.

Sounds like they model themselves on the USA.

On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 9:50:56 AM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@columbus.rr.com w rote:

Neat trick. He's edited out enough of the post he was replying to make it d ifficult to find out who or what he was replying to - I had to go to eterna l september to work out that it was David Brown, and that David Brown hadn' t - in fact - been calling for a new referendum on Brexit, but rather point ing out that millions of Brits had signed a petition calling for a new refe rendum immediately after the original Brexit referendum.

David Bown's attitude was that this might not have been a bad idea, but the re's nothing particularly superior in endorsing what millions have already petitioned for.

It is probably "being superior" to point out that the original Brexit refer endum was a remarkably stupid way for David Cameron to try to get out of a political impasse, that the creeps who campaigned for the "leave" option li ed through their teeth and that a no-deal Brexit would be an even bigger di saster than the deal that Theresa May has been able to negotiate, but it ta kes a really inferior grasp of the situation to think otherwise.

You truly are an idiot. Who in their right mind (not that you could ever be accused of such) would buy a used car from *any* politician? I'd sure buy a used car from Trump than I would have from Ted Kennedy or Hillary.

Your kind of woman, for sure. Rented.

The problem with the original referendum was that the victory marginal was quite small and random things such as even whether conditions in different part of the country could have changed the situation.

According to recent opinion polls, the margins are still quite small, having a new referendum now would give a quite ambagious result. Assuming the opinion polls would show a clear difference between options, then those in minority would more likely accept the result of a referendum, but with 51/49 or 49/51 margin, I am not so sure.

If there is going to be a hard Brexit on Mar 29th and there is going to be a hard border between Ireland and N.I., we might see more events like the car bomb in Londonderry, attributed the small dissident group called the New IRA.

The original petition was for a duplicate referendum shortly after the first one - to let people change their answers once they realised that they had accidentally won the vote and lost the country.

My suggestion was for a new referendum now, based on what we know now, some 2 years after the first referendum.

That is not "being superior" - it is merely "not being blind and ignorant".

Product quality or purchase chain?

Best regards, Piotr

What would you replace MAX258 with? IR21531 has too limited voltage range (basically 10--15V) and the rest of the SN6501 crowd is

Sorry, MAX13256 -- the regular 258 is a 5V SN6501 me-too.

Best regards, Piotr

Virgin Mary on toast! You used to be a mighty empire once upon a time, what went wrong?

In other words, voting till the result is favouralbe. And if -- by accident! -- not, then what, a third referendum maybe?

Best regards, Piotr

All sorts of things. WWI and then WWII caused a lot of damage. The world changed - the UK's empire wanted independence (for some countries that was a good thing, for others it was bad). Corrupt and/or incompetent and/or misguided politicians broke things.

I want people to make an /informed/ decision. They were not informed the first time round - partly because there were so many lies and misinformation, and partly because no one really knew what Brexit would entail at that time. If there is a new referendum and people /now/ want to leave, then fair enough.

I've always thought referendums and polls should be part of a democracy. Then people could influence issues that are important to them directly, rather than via political parties. But in order to qualify for voting, you should be required to take a test demonstrating objective knowledge of the case, before you can then give your opinion.

Informed by *whom*? :-) Where's the boundary between information and propaganda/brainwashing?

The whole point a referendum is to perform it *once*. Repeating it is an incredible outrage, whatever the result is and whatever the subject is. Once you start, there is no objective criterium when you should stop.

And so they are. In Poland, the result is "binding"* if 50% of the certified voters attended. Otherwise it is treated as advisory by the parliament.

Personally, I would prefer the UK to stay in the EU, but the Brits had the final say. And they decided to leave. I admire the consistency of your subsequent parliaments in implementing it. Just plainly unimaginable in Poland where the government always knows best. It would have solved your problem in the blink of an eye: "dear voter, thank you, now go and [...] yourself", but I prefer the British maturity.

And who is going to design the test? :-)))

Best regards, Piotr

The Murdoch press, Russia Today and the Daily Mail print propaganda - it's too grubby to call it brain-washing.

Quality newspapers do try to offer information, but they have to package it prettily enough to make it look interesting.

Fact-checking does tell you a bit about the reliability of particular sources.

Cameron - when he set up the referendum - was too confident that the "remain" side would win, and didn't put any effort into educating the electorate. Pity about that.

We'd all prefer British maturity, if they ever reached that level. Cameron went to Eton and Oxford and had a childish faith in his capacity to lead the country to where he thought it ought to go.

Good question. Schools are full of multiple choice tests that are easy and quick to mark, so there are probably people around who make a business of designing those kinds of test, and validating them on selected subjects.

By that argument, the 1975 referendum (with 67% "stay") should have been the final one.

It is not maturity, it is idiocy. It is stubbornness, and arse-covering by politicians who know /they/ will be all right, screw the rest of the country.

The majority of the British people did not decide to leave, and did not want to leave. The referendum was asking a question without people knowing what it meant. Of those that voted, 51.89% voted "leave" - a /tiny/ margin. There was quite a good turnout, at 72.21% - but that means only about a third of those eligible to vote choose "leave". For such a major decision and such a massive change to the country, any sane system would require a 60% or 66% majority before changing the status quo.

And note that in polls (which are never quite the same as the actual voting) the "stay" side would gain at least another 10% if the government planned to re-negotiate the EU relationship.

Hey, I didn't say it was practical!

I'm afraid there are no quality newspapers. Every single one is owned by some group of influence. And fact checking is not enough, they rarely lie about the "facts" themselves -- that would be too easy to spot and we still have some immunity in our genes, inherited from the era where the only true information in a newspaper was the date. Putting facts in a well designed context is how they sell their message.

A good question is whether the government should be engaged in "educating" the electorate at all. I prefer not.

Can I bring my own experts? We'll do our best to shave off the opponents at the pre-referendal stage. Objectively, Bill, rest assured.

"It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes" is a creative next step.

Best regards, Piotr

Alas, things spill over. Refugees, for example. Isolationism has been tried, but only a few primitives have made it work.

Diplomacy is only an art of the possible.

e it prettily enough to make it look interesting.

ources.

This is a matter of opinion. There's certainly a pecking order in the quali ty of newspapers, and the best are a great deal better than the worst.

The UK family that used to own the Guardian put the ownership in trust whos e sole job was to run a reliable newspaper. It doesn't do a perfect job, bu t it does a much better job than Murdoch and his family.

Do tell Trump. He lies about everything, and his lies are very easy to spot .

This is called "spin". The capacity to detect it may be heritable - Robert Plombin seems to think that most personality traits are

but people have been lying to one another for a lot longer than they have b een publishing newspapers.

emain" side would win, and didn't put any effort into educating the elector ate. Pity about that.

Universal education is a constant feature of advanced industrial countries, and seems to be a necessary part of getting to be an advanced industrial c ountry. It's run by governments. There's a tendency to depict the local way of doing things as better than all the others, but most people can see thr ough that.

and quick to mark, so there are probably people around who make a business of designing those kinds of test, and validating them on selected subjects.

Some of them could be selected by you, but stacking the selection panel is a well-known political trick, and there are ways of keeping panels more or less balanced.

Poland doesn't seem to have been doing democracy for quite long enough. The Republican Party in the US is famous for trying to fiddle the US electoral rolls to try to minimise the number of Democrats who can get to vote, and every democratic constitution since 1788 has designed better rules to disco urage this kind of trickery. They don't stop it, but they sort of work.

I've been a scrutineer at a British election - we got to watch the people w ho were counting the votes (mostly young bank clerks) and it would have bee n difficult to cheat.

An early president, Monroe IIRC, said the Russian diplomats raised mendacity to a high art.