9 ms·

What about the effect Obama had, when he supported UK remaining in the EU? How many percent did his endorsement move?

by morsma 8y ago

untog 8y ago
That's quite the whataboutism. What rules did Obama's statement break?
- growlist 8y ago
  Point is, citing the overspending by Leave as some massive deal looks a bit rich when virtually the entire establishment, business and media conspired to sway the result towards Remain.
  - untog 8y ago
    Always amuses me to see "the Establishment" cited as firmly in the Remain box. Who is Dulwich educated, commodities trader and decades-long politician Nigel Farage if he's not a part of the establishment? Or Jacob Rees bloody Mogg and Boris Johnson! Quite the anti-establishment rebels they are, eh? As for the media, the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Telegraph and the Express all pushed Leave viewpoints. Leave was always strongly supported by the establishment because they're going to make out like thieves once it happens, it was just sold as "the people's revolt" to a willing audience. Besides, what would you have happen? All of the people who are actually knowledgable about the topic should exempt themselves from debate? It's a silly argument.
    - growlist 8y ago
      You honestly think the Leave side was equivalently establishment backed as Remain? Leave had the BBC, PM, EU, banks, even the most powerful man in the world all lined up on its side.
      - untog 8y ago
        I think the Leave side was considerably more backed than the conventional narrative portrays. And received additional illegal, undisclosed funding, hence the reason for this post in the first place. And I still don't understand what you think should have happened. People across the world should have conferred to make sure that representation for both sides was exactly 50/50? The United States had the view that the UK staying in the EU was in their favour, so their President expressed that view. What's actually wrong with that? Surely it's up to voters to decide whether they think America's opinion is important or not when deciding how they should vote? Business leaders were in favour of Remain because they knew that leaving the EU would be financially perilous. How is that not relevant information for voters?
        growlist 8y ago
        Should or should not is something you've introduced yourself. I was saying it was never a fair fight to start with and given this the incessant sour grapes from the overwhelming favourite has an air of pathos about it.
        untog 8y ago
        >it was never a fair fight to start with What is a fair fight in this context? If there was a referendum to decide whether the country believes in evolution would you make sure the balance of scientists vs cranks in the public sphere was exactly 50:50? The vast majority of people with knowledge in the area knew that Brexit was a terrible idea, so they said so. And reality has proven them right. Or is this a prelude to complaining that the EU isn't being "fair" because it won't give the UK what it wants? > this the incessant sour grapes from the overwhelming favourite Remain was obviously not the favourite because it lost. That the winning side continues to paint itself as a victimised minority speaks volumes.
        growlist 8y ago
        It's kind of like Goliath saying to David 'why couldn't we have a fair fight!', conveniently ignoring his massive advantage. You've lost me entirely with your last comments. Opinion polls showed a narrow Remain victory - that's a matter of fact - and that's the very definition of favourite. To say the result changes the favourite after the fact is frankly bonkers. And portraying themselves as a victimized minority? I think you got that from the Guardian the other day didn't you? Anyway given that the powers that be keep trying their hardest to subvert the democratic will of the people, it doesn't seem unreasonable.
  - poooogles 8y ago
    >entire establishment, business and media conspired to sway the result towards Remain. I don't remember that at all. Plenty of media was pro Brexit.
matthewmacleod 8y ago
It is not and should not be illegal for anybody to make their views on political issues known. It’s much more questionable when we start to look at organised funding and lobbying. We have those rules specifically to prevent elections being bought with cash.
- morsma 8y ago
  When Merkel donated 5 million Euro to the Hillary Clinton campaign, was that then a foreign entity interfering/manipulating in an election?
  - derriz 8y ago
    Except that didn't actually happen. The German government (not Angela Merkel) contributed money for an environmental project running in Kenya and Ethiopia which the Clinton Foundation was also involved in.
  - untog 8y ago
    Put down the Infowars koolaid. That literally never happened.
clort 8y ago
AFAIK Obama didn't break the law so his contribution is not under question I think your questions could be seen as whataboutism[0], but as an answer I do know somebody who was furious that Obama was "telling us what to do" and subsequently voted leave. I don't know anybody who voted remain but was obviously swayed by Obama. Sample size is small but thats what I know. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- jsonne 8y ago
  I'm not making a point either way than to say this. Legalism is probably the weakest argument to make for or against something. Slavery was once "legal".
  - untog 8y ago
    The OP simply said that Obama's statement is not under investigation because it did not break the law. The leave campaign advertising did break the law, so it is. That's usually how criminal investigations work.
    - jsonne 8y ago
      And I'm saying that whether or not you "broke the law" isn't a very interesting argument to me because some truly horrific things are legal and some perfectly mundane ones aren't. Simply being a law isn't a compelling argument in my mind as to whether something is right or wrong. At the same time you can undermine the spirit of something while being perfectly legal. The original argument was about people attempting to sway the vote. Surely Barack Obama and his fame/notoriety taking a side would do that. It's a good counterpoint to make and one that I think has merit.
      - untog 8y ago
        But no-one is discussing whether it is right or wrong. The original question was "what about Obama's statement?" in the context of the legal investigations against the Leave campaign. The "what about" answer is "there is no criminal investigation because nothing illegal happened". I get what you're saying but it doesn't really have any relevance here. If you're disregarding legality then any questions about why a criminal investigation happened vs didn't is moot.
darkarmani 8y ago
What about it? How does that relate to "illegally bought or misleading advertising"?
sctb 8y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17620281 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17620281.

What about the effect Obama had, when he supported UK remaining in the EU? How many percent did his endorsement move?

by morsma 8y ago

What about the effect Obama had, when he supported UK remaining in the EU? How many percent did his endorsement move?

untog 8y ago

That's quite the whataboutism. What rules did Obama's statement break?

growlist 8y ago
Point is, citing the overspending by Leave as some massive deal looks a bit rich when virtually the entire establishment, business and media conspired to sway the result towards Remain.
- untog 8y ago
  Always amuses me to see "the Establishment" cited as firmly in the Remain box. Who is Dulwich educated, commodities trader and decades-long politician Nigel Farage if he's not a part of the establishment? Or Jacob Rees bloody Mogg and Boris Johnson! Quite the anti-establishment rebels they are, eh? As for the media, the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Telegraph and the Express all pushed Leave viewpoints. Leave was always strongly supported by the establishment because they're going to make out like thieves once it happens, it was just sold as "the people's revolt" to a willing audience. Besides, what would you have happen? All of the people who are actually knowledgable about the topic should exempt themselves from debate? It's a silly argument.
  - growlist 8y ago
    You honestly think the Leave side was equivalently establishment backed as Remain? Leave had the BBC, PM, EU, banks, even the most powerful man in the world all lined up on its side.
    - untog 8y ago
      I think the Leave side was considerably more backed than the conventional narrative portrays. And received additional illegal, undisclosed funding, hence the reason for this post in the first place. And I still don't understand what you think should have happened. People across the world should have conferred to make sure that representation for both sides was exactly 50/50? The United States had the view that the UK staying in the EU was in their favour, so their President expressed that view. What's actually wrong with that? Surely it's up to voters to decide whether they think America's opinion is important or not when deciding how they should vote? Business leaders were in favour of Remain because they knew that leaving the EU would be financially perilous. How is that not relevant information for voters?
      - growlist 8y ago
        Should or should not is something you've introduced yourself. I was saying it was never a fair fight to start with and given this the incessant sour grapes from the overwhelming favourite has an air of pathos about it.
        untog 8y ago
        >it was never a fair fight to start with What is a fair fight in this context? If there was a referendum to decide whether the country believes in evolution would you make sure the balance of scientists vs cranks in the public sphere was exactly 50:50? The vast majority of people with knowledge in the area knew that Brexit was a terrible idea, so they said so. And reality has proven them right. Or is this a prelude to complaining that the EU isn't being "fair" because it won't give the UK what it wants? > this the incessant sour grapes from the overwhelming favourite Remain was obviously not the favourite because it lost. That the winning side continues to paint itself as a victimised minority speaks volumes.
        growlist 8y ago
        It's kind of like Goliath saying to David 'why couldn't we have a fair fight!', conveniently ignoring his massive advantage. You've lost me entirely with your last comments. Opinion polls showed a narrow Remain victory - that's a matter of fact - and that's the very definition of favourite. To say the result changes the favourite after the fact is frankly bonkers. And portraying themselves as a victimized minority? I think you got that from the Guardian the other day didn't you? Anyway given that the powers that be keep trying their hardest to subvert the democratic will of the people, it doesn't seem unreasonable.
- poooogles 8y ago
  >entire establishment, business and media conspired to sway the result towards Remain. I don't remember that at all. Plenty of media was pro Brexit.

matthewmacleod 8y ago

It is not and should not be illegal for anybody to make their views on political issues known. It’s much more questionable when we start to look at organised funding and lobbying. We have those rules specifically to prevent elections being bought with cash.

morsma 8y ago
When Merkel donated 5 million Euro to the Hillary Clinton campaign, was that then a foreign entity interfering/manipulating in an election?
- derriz 8y ago
  Except that didn't actually happen. The German government (not Angela Merkel) contributed money for an environmental project running in Kenya and Ethiopia which the Clinton Foundation was also involved in.
- untog 8y ago
  Put down the Infowars koolaid. That literally never happened.

clort 8y ago

AFAIK Obama didn't break the law so his contribution is not under question I think your questions could be seen as whataboutism[0], but as an answer I do know somebody who was furious that Obama was "telling us what to do" and subsequently voted leave. I don't know anybody who voted remain but was obviously swayed by Obama. Sample size is small but thats what I know. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

jsonne 8y ago
I'm not making a point either way than to say this. Legalism is probably the weakest argument to make for or against something. Slavery was once "legal".
- untog 8y ago
  The OP simply said that Obama's statement is not under investigation because it did not break the law. The leave campaign advertising did break the law, so it is. That's usually how criminal investigations work.
  - jsonne 8y ago
    And I'm saying that whether or not you "broke the law" isn't a very interesting argument to me because some truly horrific things are legal and some perfectly mundane ones aren't. Simply being a law isn't a compelling argument in my mind as to whether something is right or wrong. At the same time you can undermine the spirit of something while being perfectly legal. The original argument was about people attempting to sway the vote. Surely Barack Obama and his fame/notoriety taking a side would do that. It's a good counterpoint to make and one that I think has merit.
    - untog 8y ago
      But no-one is discussing whether it is right or wrong. The original question was "what about Obama's statement?" in the context of the legal investigations against the Leave campaign. The "what about" answer is "there is no criminal investigation because nothing illegal happened". I get what you're saying but it doesn't really have any relevance here. If you're disregarding legality then any questions about why a criminal investigation happened vs didn't is moot.

darkarmani 8y ago

What about it? How does that relate to "illegally bought or misleading advertising"?

sctb 8y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17620281 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17620281.