On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 09:45:32 -0600, Janet B >
wrote:

>yeah, and they are whining now that they figured out that leaving is
>going to affect them personally, in their pocketbook.
>So much 'buyer's remorse'. It could easily happen in the US.
>Janet US

Some are whining? That would be the idiots amongst them. I doubt the
country is collectively regretting the decision somehow.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 06:54:11 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 09:45:32 -0600, Janet B >
>wrote:
>
>>yeah, and they are whining now that they figured out that leaving is
>>going to affect them personally, in their pocketbook.
>>So much 'buyer's remorse'. It could easily happen in the US.
>>Janet US
>
>Some are whining? That would be the idiots amongst them. I doubt the
>country is collectively regretting the decision somehow.

Mostly the younger people - it would seem it was the older profile
that mostly voted leave.

In article >, says...
>
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 09:45:32 -0600, Janet B >
> wrote:
>
> >yeah, and they are whining now that they figured out that leaving is
> >going to affect them personally, in their pocketbook.
> >So much 'buyer's remorse'. It could easily happen in the US.
> >Janet US
>
> Some are whining? That would be the idiots amongst them. I doubt the
> country is collectively regretting the decision somehow.

It is what I'm reading. Was it worth risking losing Scotland over, to
mention just one thing?

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:57:29 -0300, wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 06:54:11 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 09:45:32 -0600, Janet B >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>yeah, and they are whining now that they figured out that leaving is
>>>going to affect them personally, in their pocketbook.
>>>So much 'buyer's remorse'. It could easily happen in the US.
>>>Janet US
>>
>>Some are whining? That would be the idiots amongst them. I doubt the
>>country is collectively regretting the decision somehow.
>
>Mostly the younger people - it would seem it was the older profile
>that mostly voted leave.

Wisdom comes with age I guess... at least more so than when younger.

In article >,
says...
>
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 06:54:11 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 09:45:32 -0600, Janet B >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>yeah, and they are whining now that they figured out that leaving is
> >>going to affect them personally, in their pocketbook.
> >>So much 'buyer's remorse'. It could easily happen in the US.
> >>Janet US
> >
> >Some are whining? That would be the idiots amongst them. I doubt the
> >country is collectively regretting the decision somehow.
>
> Mostly the younger people - it would seem it was the older profile
> that mostly voted leave.

Yes, the old and the uneducated voted for the Brexit. Educated young
people now feel ripped off. That's it in a nutshell.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 07:00:20 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:57:29 -0300, wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 06:54:11 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 09:45:32 -0600, Janet B >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>yeah, and they are whining now that they figured out that leaving is
>>>>going to affect them personally, in their pocketbook.
>>>>So much 'buyer's remorse'. It could easily happen in the US.
>>>>Janet US
>>>
>>>Some are whining? That would be the idiots amongst them. I doubt the
>>>country is collectively regretting the decision somehow.
>>
>>Mostly the younger people - it would seem it was the older profile
>>that mostly voted leave.
>
>Wisdom comes with age I guess... at least more so than when younger.

Their reasons for not wanting to leave was they feel it is inevitably
going to curb their movements around Europe. Probably will as the EU
who remain will become antsy.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:19:31 -0300, wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 07:00:20 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:57:29 -0300, wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 06:54:11 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 09:45:32 -0600, Janet B >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>yeah, and they are whining now that they figured out that leaving is
>>>>>going to affect them personally, in their pocketbook.
>>>>>So much 'buyer's remorse'. It could easily happen in the US.
>>>>>Janet US
>>>>
>>>>Some are whining? That would be the idiots amongst them. I doubt the
>>>>country is collectively regretting the decision somehow.
>>>
>>>Mostly the younger people - it would seem it was the older profile
>>>that mostly voted leave.
>>
>>Wisdom comes with age I guess... at least more so than when younger.
>
>Their reasons for not wanting to leave was they feel it is inevitably
>going to curb their movements around Europe.

Aww, the poor things. At least they have their smart phones to console
them

>Probably will as the EU
>who remain will become antsy.

In article >, says...
>
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 09:45:32 -0600, Janet B >
> wrote:
>
> >yeah, and they are whining now that they figured out that leaving is
> >going to affect them personally, in their pocketbook.
> >So much 'buyer's remorse'. It could easily happen in the US.
> >Janet US
>
> Some are whining? That would be the idiots amongst them. I doubt the
> country is collectively regretting the decision somehow.

A great many voters in the Referendum, were adults who had never
voted in their lives before (unless for game shows) They were encouraged
to register and take part.

Now some are saying if they knew their Brexit vote might win they
wouldn't have done it; they didn't really mean it and they want to do it
again, properly.

<sigh>

Janet UK

In article >,
says...
>
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 07:00:20 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:57:29 -0300, wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 06:54:11 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 09:45:32 -0600, Janet B >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>yeah, and they are whining now that they figured out that leaving is
> >>>>going to affect them personally, in their pocketbook.
> >>>>So much 'buyer's remorse'. It could easily happen in the US.
> >>>>Janet US
> >>>
> >>>Some are whining? That would be the idiots amongst them. I doubt the
> >>>country is collectively regretting the decision somehow.
> >>
> >>Mostly the younger people - it would seem it was the older profile
> >>that mostly voted leave.
> >
> >Wisdom comes with age I guess... at least more so than when younger.
>
> Their reasons for not wanting to leave was they feel it is inevitably
> going to curb their movements around Europe. Probably will as the EU
> who remain will become antsy.

Most Brits have passports, and we have always needed one to travel in
Europe (before and during EU membership).

Janet UK

On 6/26/2016 12:59 PM, Janet wrote:

>
> A great many voters in the Referendum, were adults who had never
> voted in their lives before (unless for game shows) They were encouraged
> to register and take part.
>
> Now some are saying if they knew their Brexit vote might win they
> wouldn't have done it; they didn't really mean it and they want to do it
> again, properly.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Janet UK
>

If they have another vote will they be made to wear a sign stating "I'm
really stupid so I'm doing it again"?

Anyone wanting to vote again should be banned from voting for anything
ever again.

BTW, has the Queen said anything?

On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 17:59:13 +0100, Janet > wrote:

>In article >, says...
>>
>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 09:45:32 -0600, Janet B >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >yeah, and they are whining now that they figured out that leaving is
>> >going to affect them personally, in their pocketbook.
>> >So much 'buyer's remorse'. It could easily happen in the US.
>> >Janet US
>>
>> Some are whining? That would be the idiots amongst them. I doubt the
>> country is collectively regretting the decision somehow.
>
> A great many voters in the Referendum, were adults who had never
>voted in their lives before (unless for game shows) They were encouraged
>to register and take part.

Voting is compulsory in Australia, there have been times I have had
misgivings about that, but when I read about situations like you
describe I can see the value in it. It's no guarantee of people voting
willingly or with knowledge but I think generally speaking, it forces
people to be more engaged in politics.

> Now some are saying if they knew their Brexit vote might win they
>wouldn't have done it; they didn't really mean it and they want to do it
>again, properly.
>
> <sigh>

<shakes head>... you're not exactly helping to raise my opinion of the
average person you know

In article >, says...
>
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 17:59:13 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>
> >In article >, says...
> >>
> >> On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 09:45:32 -0600, Janet B >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >yeah, and they are whining now that they figured out that leaving is
> >> >going to affect them personally, in their pocketbook.
> >> >So much 'buyer's remorse'. It could easily happen in the US.
> >> >Janet US
> >>
> >> Some are whining? That would be the idiots amongst them. I doubt the
> >> country is collectively regretting the decision somehow.
> >
> > A great many voters in the Referendum, were adults who had never
> >voted in their lives before (unless for game shows) They were encouraged
> >to register and take part.
>
> Voting is compulsory in Australia, there have been times I have had
> misgivings about that, but when I read about situations like you
> describe I can see the value in it. It's no guarantee of people voting
> willingly or with knowledge but I think generally speaking, it forces
> people to be more engaged in politics.

I agree, and I wish we had compulsory voting. However, as all can see
here in rfc, even people who habitually do vote, can still be
appallingly ignorant about their country and the issues they supposedly
"care about"

Janet UK

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 03:20:57 +0100, Janet > wrote:

>In article >, says...
>>
>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 17:59:13 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >, says...
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 09:45:32 -0600, Janet B >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >yeah, and they are whining now that they figured out that leaving is
>> >> >going to affect them personally, in their pocketbook.
>> >> >So much 'buyer's remorse'. It could easily happen in the US.
>> >> >Janet US
>> >>
>> >> Some are whining? That would be the idiots amongst them. I doubt the
>> >> country is collectively regretting the decision somehow.
>> >
>> > A great many voters in the Referendum, were adults who had never
>> >voted in their lives before (unless for game shows) They were encouraged
>> >to register and take part.
>>
>> Voting is compulsory in Australia, there have been times I have had
>> misgivings about that, but when I read about situations like you
>> describe I can see the value in it. It's no guarantee of people voting
>> willingly or with knowledge but I think generally speaking, it forces
>> people to be more engaged in politics.
>
> I agree, and I wish we had compulsory voting. However, as all can see
>here in rfc, even people who habitually do vote, can still be
>appallingly ignorant about their country and the issues they supposedly
>"care about"

That's certainly the case here.

On 2016-06-26 10:20 PM, Janet wrote:

> I agree, and I wish we had compulsory voting. However, as all can see
> here in rfc, even people who habitually do vote, can still be
> appallingly ignorant about their country and the issues they supposedly
> "care about"

I would not be opposed to some sort of testing process in order to be
allowed to vote because some people are simply to stupid or misinformed
to be allowed to make important decisions. A prime example is a woman I
was talking with before our last federal election. She was whining
about how the Conservatives cared only about the rich and gave an
example of the tax free savings accounts. She claimed that regular
people cannot take advantage of it because you have to have $200,000 to
start one. That was complete nonsense. There been a limit on the amount
that could deposited annually, and that had started at $5000 and was
later increased to $5500. People like that should not be allowed to vote.

On 6/27/2016 8:05 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2016-06-26 10:20 PM, Janet wrote:
>
>> I agree, and I wish we had compulsory voting. However, as all can see
>> here in rfc, even people who habitually do vote, can still be
>> appallingly ignorant about their country and the issues they supposedly
>> "care about"
>
> I would not be opposed to some sort of testing process in order to be
> allowed to vote because some people are simply to stupid or misinformed
> to be allowed to make important decisions. A prime example is a woman I
> was talking with before our last federal election. She was whining
> about how the Conservatives cared only about the rich and gave an
> example of the tax free savings accounts. She claimed that regular
> people cannot take advantage of it because you have to have $200,000 to
> start one. That was complete nonsense. There been a limit on the amount
> that could deposited annually, and that had started at $5000 and was
> later increased to $5500. People like that should not be allowed to vote.
>
>

How about the issues? Do you think people should have a clue about
them? I've heard of votes going one way or the other for things like
hair-do, like the way he looks, dresses better, and other important
things of the day.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:39:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 6/27/2016 8:05 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2016-06-26 10:20 PM, Janet wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, and I wish we had compulsory voting. However, as all can see
>>> here in rfc, even people who habitually do vote, can still be
>>> appallingly ignorant about their country and the issues they supposedly
>>> "care about"
>>
>> I would not be opposed to some sort of testing process in order to be
>> allowed to vote because some people are simply to stupid or misinformed
>> to be allowed to make important decisions. A prime example is a woman I
>> was talking with before our last federal election. She was whining
>> about how the Conservatives cared only about the rich and gave an
>> example of the tax free savings accounts. She claimed that regular
>> people cannot take advantage of it because you have to have $200,000 to
>> start one. That was complete nonsense. There been a limit on the amount
>> that could deposited annually, and that had started at $5000 and was
>> later increased to $5500. People like that should not be allowed to vote.
>>
>>
>
>How about the issues? Do you think people should have a clue about
>them? I've heard of votes going one way or the other for things like
>hair-do, like the way he looks, dresses better, and other important
>things of the day.

There will always be people who are unwilling/unable to pay attention
to the ins and outs of real information. Politicians understand this
and that is why their message is delivered in sound bites. For
instance, Trump has rightly understood that outrageous one-liners are
easy to remember and repeat to others -- whether the one-liners are
lies or not. Trump's followers love him for it because he makes it
easy and comfortable for them to feel politically smart.
Janet US

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/27/2016 8:05 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2016-06-26 10:20 PM, Janet wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, and I wish we had compulsory voting. However, as all can see
>>> here in rfc, even people who habitually do vote, can still be
>>> appallingly ignorant about their country and the issues they supposedly
>>> "care about"
>>
>> I would not be opposed to some sort of testing process in order to be
>> allowed to vote because some people are simply to stupid or misinformed
>> to be allowed to make important decisions. A prime example is a woman I
>> was talking with before our last federal election. She was whining
>> about how the Conservatives cared only about the rich and gave an
>> example of the tax free savings accounts. She claimed that regular
>> people cannot take advantage of it because you have to have $200,000 to
>> start one. That was complete nonsense. There been a limit on the amount
>> that could deposited annually, and that had started at $5000 and was
>> later increased to $5500. People like that should not be allowed to vote.
>>
>>
>
> How about the issues? Do you think people should have a clue about them?
> I've heard of votes going one way or the other for things like hair-do,
> like the way he looks, dresses better, and other important things of the
> day.

Testing would let Dave out for sure.

Cheri

On 2016-06-27 10:39 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 6/27/2016 8:05 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2016-06-26 10:20 PM, Janet wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, and I wish we had compulsory voting. However, as all can see
>>> here in rfc, even people who habitually do vote, can still be
>>> appallingly ignorant about their country and the issues they supposedly
>>> "care about"
>>
>> I would not be opposed to some sort of testing process in order to be
>> allowed to vote because some people are simply to stupid or misinformed
>> to be allowed to make important decisions. A prime example is a woman I
>> was talking with before our last federal election. She was whining
>> about how the Conservatives cared only about the rich and gave an
>> example of the tax free savings accounts. She claimed that regular
>> people cannot take advantage of it because you have to have $200,000 to
>> start one. That was complete nonsense. There been a limit on the amount
>> that could deposited annually, and that had started at $5000 and was
>> later increased to $5500. People like that should not be allowed to vote.
>>
>>
>
> How about the issues? Do you think people should have a clue about
> them? I've heard of votes going one way or the other for things like
> hair-do, like the way he looks, dresses better, and other important
> things of the day.


Heaven forbid voters should actually be informed about the facts and the
issues. There is way too much rhetoric flying around where there should
be reason. The media does not help. Just look at the way some news
sources have slanted their news and spiced it up with rhetoric.
According to a poll taken last year, 40% of Americans (polled) believe
that US forces found WMDs in Iraq. It had taken Bush the Lesser years
to get up and admit that they had not found any, and it was 8 years ago
that he did that. Earlier polls had broken down the respondents by news
source. Those who got their news primarily from PBS and NPR were the
least likely to believe they had and those who got their news from Fox
were most likely to had said they had. Granted, it could be a chicken
and egg question. They could have been swayed by Fox's factoid
reporting, or they could have been inclined to watch FOX because it
reinforces their misguided opinions.

On 2016-06-27 10:59 AM, Janet B wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:39:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>> How about the issues? Do you think people should have a clue about
>> them? I've heard of votes going one way or the other for things like
>> hair-do, like the way he looks, dresses better, and other important
>> things of the day.
>
> There will always be people who are unwilling/unable to pay attention
> to the ins and outs of real information. Politicians understand this
> and that is why their message is delivered in sound bites.

There is more to the use of sound bites that the viewer's short
attention span. The media is in the business of selling advertising,
and the more sensational they can make the news the more attention they
will get. They will carefully sift through the recordings to get
something they can sensationalize. They will ignore all the good stuff
and play back only the one or two lines that they want to run with.

>For
> instance, Trump has rightly understood that outrageous one-liners are
> easy to remember and repeat to others -- whether the one-liners are
> lies or not. Trump's followers love him for it because he makes it
> easy and comfortable for them to feel politically smart.

It is a pretty sad state of affairs when they make themselves
politically smart by parroting Trumpisms. We keep seeing things in
social media where someone is debunking claims of Trump having said
something ridiculous. The funny thing is the comments are no more
outlandish that many of his other comments.

I expect that some time in the future someone will be making a movie
about Trump's unsuccessful run for the presidency and it will end up
being more like a comedy than a drama.

Janet, you are right spot-on about Trump making people feel smart without the need for
depth statements on substantive issues. Many of his supporters likely don't even know what
that means.

As to being great for business...did anyone else see the news report stating there are currently
3,500 lawsuits against him and his companies for non-payment for goods and services?
These plaintiffs include service employees, housekeepers, contractors, etc.

It's easy to have money if you never pay your bills.

N.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:40:36 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:

>
>Janet, you are right spot-on about Trump making people feel smart without the need for
>depth statements on substantive issues. Many of his supporters likely don't even know what
>that means.
>
>As to being great for business...did anyone else see the news report stating there are currently
>3,500 lawsuits against him and his companies for non-payment for goods and services?
>These plaintiffs include service employees, housekeepers, contractors, etc.
>
>It's easy to have money if you never pay your bills.
>
>N.

Lol, must be luverly not to pay bills!

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:40:36 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:

>
>Janet, you are right spot-on about Trump making people feel smart without the need for
>depth statements on substantive issues. Many of his supporters likely don't even know what
>that means.
>
>As to being great for business...did anyone else see the news report stating there are currently
>3,500 lawsuits against him and his companies for non-payment for goods and services?
>These plaintiffs include service employees, housekeepers, contractors, etc.
>
>It's easy to have money if you never pay your bills.

Trump never needed to fend for himself as he was given 200 million by
his father (I think that was back around 1981 from memory). What he
has done with that money since is thoroughly under whelming, based on
Standard and Poor's ratings. A brain-damaged chimp could have parlayed
that 200 million into FAR more than his current net worth.

One thing Trump has NOT done with his money...in spite of frequently bragging about
his charitable contributions...is actually making donations to charity.

Get this: over the past seven (7) years, he has donated (gasp) $10,000! That is,
Ten Thousand dollars.

Wow, what a generous dude.

N.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 05:19:23 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:

>One thing Trump has NOT done with his money...in spite of frequently bragging about
>his charitable contributions...is actually making donations to charity.
>
>Get this: over the past seven (7) years, he has donated (gasp) $10,000! That is,
>Ten Thousand dollars.
>
>Wow, what a generous dude.
>
>N.

Didn't know that but it doesn't surprise me in the least!