Dumb Whites Voting Their Race Over Their Countries

Whites are the dumbest people on earth but they want to maintain power so will never attribute their stupid to their race only make excuses to maintain the myth. By Theron K. Cal & Olivia Goldhill

Whites are the dumbest people on earth but they want to maintain power so will never attribute their stupid to their race only make excuses to maintain the myth. By Theron K. Cal & Olivia Goldhill


listen on TuneIN-OPINION  June 29th 2016

Whites are convinced they are under assault by blacks starting with President Barack Obama and their inability to destroy him and his subsequent success as America’s-and indeed the world’s-most accomplished leader.

Obama has changed the politics of the world and for as dumb as white people are they know they will never again be able to seize power simply because they’re white. In the following article Olivia Goldhill writing in QZ.COM is 100% wrong for not telling the real reason why whites are voting against their best interests it distancing themselves from President Obama and his policies for no other reason than his race.      

The political stakes in the UK and the US are high, yet both countries have of late embraced impractical candidates with far-left ideologies. In the UK, those who voted for socialist Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader, when he had little experience, may be ruing their decision after his failure to to put forward a strong case for the UK remaining in the EU. Meanwhile, in the US, Bernie Sanders supporters clung to their candidate even when his remaining in the race diverted Hillary Clinton from focusing on Donald Trump.

They're white first and citizens of the world 2nd its a selfish destructive  ideology. REUTERS/Stefan Wermuth

They’re white first and citizens of the world 2nd its a selfish destructive ideology. REUTERS/Stefan Wermuth

Finding a candidate who embraces your values is understandable, crucial even. But fervent idealism, which places support for a certain candidate above all practical consequences of that support, is foolhardy. According to ethicists, it’s also immoral.

 “The purpose of voting is not to express your fidelity to a worldview. It’s not to wave a flag or paint your face in team colors; it’s to produce outcomes,” says Jason Brennan, a philosopher at Georgetown University and author of The Ethics of Voting. “If they’re smart, they’ll vote for the candidate likely to best produce the outcome they want. That might very well be compromising, but if voting for a far-left or far-right candidate means that you’re just going to lose the election, then you’ve brought the world further away from justice rather than closer to it.”

Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, says it’s important for voters to balance their principles with the consequences of their actions. He suggests creating an equation to multiply how much one favors a candidate by that candidate’s chances of having a positive impact.

In general, two broad schools of ethics have bearing on how votes are cast, according to Michael LaBossiere, a philosophy professor at Florida A&M University. Utilitarianism suggests that the best action is whichever creates the maximum happiness for the greatest number of people—i.e. it’s best to vote with an eye to the political consequences. On the flip side, a deontological approach argues that the action itself, rather than the consequences, has moral worth, and so it would be acceptable to, say, champion Sanders regardless of how this might affect long-term US politics.

 “As a citizen, I have a duty to others because it’s not just me and my principles, but everybody,” says LaBossiere, who favors the utilitarian approach. “I have to consider how what I do will impact other people. For example, if I was a die-hard Bernie supporter, I might say my principles tell me to vote for Bernie. But I’m not going to let my principles condemn other people to suffering.”

What can get lost in strategic voting, however, is nuance—opting for the more practical candidate usually means opting for something closer to the status quo. That leaves limited opportunities for perspectives that fall outside party lines.

“You enter a polling booth, there’s a complicated decision floating around in your head, and the best you can say is, ‘I vote for Hillary Clinton,’ or ‘I vote for Donald Trump,’” says Eric Pacuit, a philosophy professor at the University of Maryland. “It’s very limited.”

There are plenty of people on the losing side of Britain’s epic decision to vote itself out of the European Union. The stock market tanked, the pound got crushed, and the political landscape is looks like the closing act of a Shakespearian tragedy.

But from crisis comes opportunity, especially for those billing by the hour for legal advice.

“In the short-term, there will be an increase in demand because there is such uncertainty,” said Guy Lougher, partner and head of the Brexit advisory team at Pinsent Masons, a British law firm.

Pinsent Masons set up its Brexit team last September to help clients manage potential fallout: Brexit clauses were put into deals and many pushed back signing dates to June 24.

Then came Friday, and the Leave vote that few had predicted would actually happen. “It was pretty busy,” Lougher said. “Everyone was in a state of shock.”

 Some deals were put on hold or canceled. Clients called with a flurry of questions.
 Could the owners of a massive UK infrastructure project still hire EU nationals? And if they import machinery for the project, who pays any new tariffs? Clients seeking patents wondered if they needed additional protection in the UK. (Pre-Brexit one would not need such protections.) And what happens to tariffs on commercial agreements with delivery dates in the future? Or to investigations into anti-competitive practices?
 “There has been a big uptick in the number of queries,” Lougher said.

Lawyers and accountants are springing into action. Deloitte held a webinar on Friday morning to talk implications, and more than 7,000 clients joined the call. Rick Cudworth, who heads up resilience and crisis management in the UK—the title says it all—is emphasizing to clients “the need to manage any immediate financial risks, communicate with their staff, investors and markets, and make detailed and considered plans for the future their business faces.”

What happens next is anyone’s guess. Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty has to be invoked to start the two-year clock on divorce proceedings. The European Communities Act, under which the UK is subject to European law, also has to be repealed. Both are epically complicated ordeals (which will no doubt require many lawyers). Whether Britain is permanently crippled, or could actually benefit, depends on the shape of the trade agreements the UK negotiates.

No one wants to appear to be cashing in on the gloom and chaos post-Brexit, but lawyers and consultants certainly do appear to be working at full tilt. “Right now we are focused on client and client issues and no one is taking time out to talk about the impact on us,” said a spokesman from Clifford Chance, “though it is safe to say that we are incredibly busy at the moment.”

Ultimately, even if lawyers are seeing a post-Brexit bump in business, the long-term impact on the legal profession could be negative. If businesses start avoiding Britain, and businesses here shrink, that doesn’t help anyone.