h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I don't know, if the option was The Rapture would it be different?

Oh, definitely. Nearly half (47%) of US Christians believe that Jesus will return in their lifetime.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/01/christ-second-coming-survey_n_2993218.html

And one of those was a former president who actively tried to facilitate Armageddon.

W.

http://www.rawstory.com/2013/11/maddow-george-w-bush-really-was-trying-to-bring-about-the-end-of-the-world/

*Waves hand dismissively.*

Pfft, an asteroid impanct wouldn't lead to extinction.... Just massive amounts of death and destruction.

Really, would that be so bad?

An asteroid impact might not NECESSARILY lead to extinction. Really depends on the size of the asteroid.

Oh, and I need to correct my statement. The actual question in the survey was, "If the choices for President were Democrat Hillary Clinton, Republican Donald Trump, and a Giant Meteor hitting the earth which would you choose?"

43% Clinton, 38% Trump, 13% Giant Meteor, 7% unsure.

And those for the Giant Meteor were fairly evenly split. 21 percent of meteor supporters identified as somewhat or very conservative, 16 percent as moderate, and 23 percent as somewhat or very liberal.

What about an asteroid the size of Texas?


Incidentally, I read that George Bush link. It's pure speculation! There's not a shred of evidence for it, it's just some person's random opinion, based entirely on the fact that Bush is speaking at a religious convention. We have no idea what motivated him to do so; it could just as easily be that they're paying him absurd amounts of money.


You might as well quote Glenn Beck as saying the Illuminati are secretly controlling the world.

You're correct. It is just speculation. I wish I hadn't linked to that "source" anyway. I'm typically very leery of those ultra politically bias blogs but it was the first result from my search terms and as I'm supposed to be working, I didn't bother delving further.

Regardless, it's all speculation anyway as Bush hasn't directly admitted what his motivations were, but he did give us a hint in a 2003 phone call to France’s President Jacques Chirac where he said he saw, “Gog and Magog at work" in the Middle East.

Here's more speculation but this time with a smidgen of cited sources: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermitzarleyblog/2013/04/did-president-george-w-bush-use-the-bible-in-deciding-that-the-u-s-attack-iraq/

>And what if it gives the same result - hold another one?<

No, that I think would be conclusive. As Baron Grim has said, and many other commentators - many many people - can't remember the source, but as many as 2 million it has been suggested - did exactly that - a protest vote thinking it wouldn't count. My wife being one of them Many thought it was a regional count, much like a general election etc...

Look at Gove and Johnson for a start, they didn't even expect to win! Their faces after the 'victory' tell their own story on that one.

Somehow Cameron, Johnson, Gove and others were allowed to play a game of russian roullette with the country - I don't believe it should be allowed to stand without proper check and balance. There are many prominent examples in history where plebiscites have come up with stupid destructive results without proper checks and balances - going back to the dawn of democracy. The Athenians learned that lesson when jingoistic populist politicians sent their navy to destruction and they lost a big war as a result. They learned the lesson our ex/lame-duck leaders seem to have forgotten.

Plenty of snobbish elitists have made disastrous decisions too.



"Here's more speculation..."

An absurdly unhealthy amount of speculation.

Yes but when snobbish elitists kick down on the masses is one thing, but the masses have no one to kick down on.

The proletariat in Russia circa 1917 might disagree.


Where does the snobbishness and elitism comment arise from? All I wish for is major decisions like that to be taken with a degree of sensibleness. Constitutional changes even in business or a debating union require a quorum and a 2/3 majority for a good reason.

"Where does the snobbishness and elitism comment arise from?"


The words "plebiscites" and "jingoistic populist politicians" carry certain negative connotations.

But I agree that a 2/3 majority would've been the way to go. For something as big as leaving the EU, I'd say there's even an argument to be made for a 3/4 majority.

It's too late. Teresa May is going to be the next PM and she's firmly said that Leave means Leave. There'll be no second referendum. I hope I'm wrong.

Also, yes, I've seen the polls which say how many Leave voters would, given a second go, would vote Remain.

What I've not seen, even once, is a poll which asks how many Remain voters would, given a second go, vote Leave. Because I guarantee that's not zero. Chattering Remainers never consider that if we held the vote again, and required a two thirds majority, Leave might get it.

I think the lesson to be learned is to NEVER treat your vote as a protest. It may well backfire and we get a worse result than if you had voted honestly.

But that's just my humble opinion.

A plebiscite is just another word for a referendum YOU might put a negative connotation on it, that's your choice.

It's very difficult to see exactly what this political statement is trying to tell us from a viewpoint of being in the centre of it. Americans may see it more clearly than Brits at the moment.

My best guess, and the one I've felt since a few days before the vote, is that it's the inevitable culmination of a growing disconnect between the people and the political system. Since the 1970s we've had parliaments and governments which simply don't listen, don't debate in the chamber and don't compromise. We've had dictatorial nannies like Thatcher who think they know best and stop at nothing to suppress any opposition (cf miners/South Yorkshire Police). We then replaced that with the Blair government, who, rather than redress the balance with all the workers rights removed and state-owned assets sold off by Thatcher, continued largely in the same vein. (I blame Blair particularly for destroying the influence of parliament over government - the only debate we now have is the weekly PMQ pantomime). Cameron only rose to power in a hung parliament, after Blair/Brown's New Labour self-destructed as Thatcher/Major did previously. His eventual victory came after the pro-European third party vote collapsed and Scottish Nationalism surged - both strong indicators of this growing disconnect.

The thing I can't quite grasp is the gap in opinion between young and old. But I have a lot of hope in the fact that young people wanted to work in a more global society. I expect this to develop into a new political force of some sort.

"rather than redress the balance with all the workers rights removed [...]by Thatcher"

Hang on... I'm not a fan of Thatcher. In fact I'm on record here as stating, before she died, that her final resting place would have to be, as with Princess Diana, on an island on private land because the alternative would be a permanent queue of people (including myself) lining up to empty our bladders and possibly bowels on her grave.

But... many of the "rights" enjoyed by workers before Thatcher were "rights" conferred on them only by the power of the unions. Whereas many of the rights workers in the UK currently enjoy - guaranteed minimum holidays, working time limits, sick pay, parental leave - are universal because they're enshrined in actual LAW. Why? Because of the EU. The EU we integrated more thoroughly with thanks to... er... Thatcher and the Single European Act of 1986. And Major and the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties. You can blame Blair for some things, but on the whole individual workers are - or WERE, thank you Brexiteers - better off thanks to the EU.

Thanks for that. I have strong memories of Thatcher being pro-Brexit towards the end, but I need to refamiliarise myself with her attitudes during the negotiation of the Single European Act and the treaties which enshrined those rights.

Thatcher was certainly a Eurosceptic in many of the modern ways we see them - but I think her main issue at the time was getting the rebate from the EU as Britain at the time was paying vastly more to be in the club than just about anyone else (iirc correctly, that may be eurosceptic propaganda from the time - I'm unsure of the details).

She was certainly anti-federalist, anti-single currency and such like.

I'm anti single currency. The ERM was a disaster - so.... er.... let's try it again and go for it even more with the single currency . So I've been 'eurosceptic' in my time. The EU is not perfect but leaving it entirely is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

rebate from the EEC I should say. The EU came in later of course.