|
|
|
|
|
by xboxnolifes
31 days ago
|
|
> Let's say you let a province (or US state) secede over political/cultural issues. What happens to all of the people who don't want to go along for the ride? Well, thats politics? The people proposing this are supposed to be considering that. And the people in that position are supposed to be considering that. Every day there are votes with outcomes people dont want to go along with the ride for. But they do, or they resist, or otherwise. |
|
Let's not let politics' meaning become so diffuse it's just free speech by another name. Herein "politics" seems to be too inconsequential for a far more consequential result than cycling out party A for B for a few years would have.
I've half joked before that brexit was the only solution Cameron et al saw left because they didnt have a way to hold Brussel's paper pushers to account. Taking your ball and going home is not bold leadership: it's an admission one's argument and solution is weak.