CapeXit 2

Poll is for all in South Africa -

  • Do you believe W/Cape secession from the Republic is feasible ?

    Votes: 28 34.1%

  • Would you support a bid for W/Cape to secede from the Republic ?

    Votes: 33 40.2%

  • In the event of secession being successful, would you consider migrating to W/Cape ?

    Votes: 23 28.0%

  • In the event of secession being successful, would you consider migrating out of W/Cape ?

    Votes: 3 3.7%

  • Would you support other provinces bids for secession ?

    Votes: 20 24.4%

  • I disagree to all questions

    Votes: 35 42.7%

  • Would you support a "Swiss Canton" style of governance for the Republic ?

    Votes: 24 29.3%
  • Total voters
    82
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pre-94 Apartheid: you re not free to choose your associates. You may not associate with X, Y or Z category of people.

Post-94 AA: you re not free to choose your associates. You may not refrain from association with X, Y or Z category of people.
Click to expand...

At be honest and admit that you know the Rainbow Project does not protect the right to Freedom of Association, "for good reasons, X, Y and Z".

Don't lie about it by saying that it protects the right to FoA, exception under the following circumstances X, Y and Z.

The right to be free from the imposition of uninvited, 3rd-party interaction, where the bill of rights is not being violated, is absolute.

Rather be honest and say you don't have the absolute right to be free from arbitrary, threatening interference by legally-privileged fellow citizens.

Rather call a spade a spade.
 
Brian_G said:
What makes you think the WC-ians will vote yes, if the question is phrased similar to (initially or later);
"Do you want the WC and (its ruling party) to begin negotiations for separating from SA?"

No, I tell you, the answer will not only be NO, it will remain that way until the true issue is tackled - for the WC-ians to get to see and understand where SA (including WC) are heading. Until Phil does that, there's no game to play with here.

And if the referendum question is watered down, the (outcome) results will be worse.


/done

and bye
Click to expand...
Like I've said many times.... I prefer to constrain myself to a moral argument for secession.

One reason is that I don't like to pre-empt the will of the people. Even if the people vote NO, you will have respected their right to express their preference.

And nothing prevents them from doing it again at any point in the future.

Referenda is the most important democratic tool in the chest. And politicians know this. Because it also represents a potential upheaval/uncertainty for them personally i.e. career-wise.

So they are acting in their own personal interests, and those of their donors.

One shouldn't be so naive as to think politicians act solely in the interests of their electorate.
 
lexity said:
Like I've said many times.... I prefer to constrain myself to a moral argument for secession.

One reason is that I don't like to pre-empt the will of the people. Even if the people vote NO, you will have respected their right to express their preference.
Click to expand...

There's no debate here though, it's clear that as a potential move forward WC-ians are practically considering secession a joke (except maybe in their private thoughts, which they're too nervous to act on)

What I think you're really saying is, if the tough won't get tougher then act tough anyway

lexity said:
And nothing prevents them from doing it again at any point in the future.
Click to expand...

Money is

lexity said:
Referenda is the most important democratic tool in the chest. And politicians know this. Because it also represents a potential upheaval/uncertainty for them personally i.e. career-wise.

So they are acting in their own personal interests, and those of their donors.

One shouldn't be so naive as to think politicians act solely in the interests of their electorate.
Click to expand...

Sure. And the public aren't doing anything about it, so not much of practical use in that consideration. Yet...
 
ToxicBunny said:
No, there is only 1 definition of Democracy, not 2.
Click to expand...
This has been covered, many times...

Here are the first of matching specimens from a quick mybb search...


If you can't abide by a fixed Bill of Rights, you are a menace to your community.

The only time it is appropriate to advocate for a change, to a BoRs, is when you refrain from forcing those preferences onto others. That's what a referendum on independence is.
 
lexity said:
Like I've said many times.... I prefer to constrain myself to a moral argument for secession.

One reason is that I don't like to pre-empt the will of the people. Even if the people vote NO, you will have respected their right to express their preference.

And nothing prevents them from doing it again at any point in the future.

Referenda is the most important democratic tool in the chest. And politicians know this. Because it also represents a potential upheaval/uncertainty for them personally i.e. career-wise.

So they are acting in their own personal interests, and those of their donors.

One shouldn't be so naive as to think politicians act solely in the interests of their electorate.
Click to expand...

Yet no-one is keen on funding a private one either.

It's clear that there's no will for an independent Western Cape, or people would nominate capable people to push for it.

Instead we have an almost two decades old party that can't even organise itself to register for an election, and estate agent Phil who seems to have found an additional income stream between commission payments.
 
lexity said:
This has been covered, many times...

Here are the first of matching specimens from a quick mybb search...


If you can't abide by a fixed Bill of Rights, you are a menace to your community.

The only time it is appropriate to advocate for a change, to a BoRs, is when you refrain from forcing those preferences onto others. That's what a referendum on independence is.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change that there is only 1 defintion of Democracy lexy.
 
Brian_G said:
Money is
Click to expand...
Don't give them more power than they actually have.

Money is only one part.

We have seen political upsets many times throughout human history.

Brian_G said:
Sure. And the public aren't doing anything about it, so not much of practical use in that consideration. Yet...
Click to expand...
Try to focus on what needs to be done, rather than what people are not doing.

Also: hanging out with cynics will turn you into one.

Gaze not into the abyss.... lest the abyss gaze into you.

The WC people have actually acted in good faith. It's the ANC and DA that have dropped the ball here.

Rather reserve your criticism for where its deserved. Or at least reprioritize it so that yours is not one of the distorted views on offer.
 
lexity said:
The WC people have actually acted in good faith. It's the ANC and DA that have dropped the ball here.
Click to expand...

The people have let themselves down as well, when it came to crunch time (although many of them may not yet realise it).

You do you, best not to try tell me what I should be doing - for that you need access to my head, and I'm not giving you that :p
 
vigras rojara said:
It's clear that there's no will for an independent Western Cape, or people would nominate capable people to push for it.
Click to expand...
I think you have a bit of a blind spot for politicians who are in breach of their oath.

How does someone who breaks his oath not get pride of criticism over those who have done their bit?

You can criticize some CI members for expecting a democratic representative to act on his oath to the people. But in doing so you are admitting that we live in a broken democracy.

Why are you not highlighting that?

I have an idea why anyone might feel pressure not to bite the hand that feeds him.
 
Brian_G said:
The people have let themselves down as well, when it came to crunch time (although many of them may not yet realise it).

You do you, best not to try tell me what I should be doing - for that you need access to my head, and I'm not giving you that :p
Click to expand...
Are you committed to confining yourself to avoiding and resolving conflict solely through discourse/argumentation?

Or have you reserved the initiation of force/aggression, to 'win arguments'.

Are you primitive, like some are on this forum? Or are you civilized?

No fencing-sitting, Brian_G. It doesn't look good on you.
 
lexity said:
Are you committed to confining yourself to avoiding and resolving conflict solely through discourse/argumentation?

Or have you reserved the initiation of force/aggression, to 'win arguments'.

Are you primitive, like some are on this forum? Or are you civilized?

No fencing-sitting, Brian_G. It doesn't look good on you.
Click to expand...

Lex, Lex, .... actually, that's a really difficult question for me to answer.

I'm massively anti-violence, but know we have no choice sometimes. So on the fence I will still sit, with this one anyway..
 
lexity said:
I think you have a bit of a blind spot for politicians who are in breach of their oath.

How does someone who breaks his oath not get pride of criticism over those who have done their bit?

You can criticize some CI members for expecting a democratic representative to act on his oath to the people. But in doing so you are admitting that we live in a broken democracy.

Why are you not highlighting that?

I have an idea why anyone might feel pressure not to bite the hand that feeds him.
Click to expand...

I think you have a blind spot for incompetence within the CI movement.

The amount of backing, connections, credibility and resources required to have a decent crack at it are way beyond the capabilities of the current parties.

And of course you then have to wonder why the people who might be able to have a decent go at it, just aren't interested in doing so.

I know what your reply will be to that, but that's ok. It just ain't happening.
 
vigras rojara said:
I think you have a blind spot for incompetence within the CI movement.

The amount of backing, connections, credibility and resources required to have a decent crack at it are way beyond the capabilities of the current parties.

And of course you then have to wonder why the people who might be able to have a decent go at it, just aren't interested in doing so.

I know what your reply will be to that, but that's ok. It just ain't happening.
Click to expand...

Spot on. And sadly, the only medicine for that scenario is a tough punch to the (Phil & co.'s) face.
 
vigras rojara said:
I think you have a blind spot for incompetence within the CI movement.

The amount of backing, connections, credibility and resources required to have a decent crack at it are way beyond the capabilities of the current parties.
Click to expand...
Well of course in an undemocratic system that's kind of what we are stuck with right?

I mean we know the bias of media that is funded through that undemocratic elevation of influencers.

I have also just pointed out the perverse incentives present in looking to politicians to help you usher in a potentially career-ending pro-Democratic solution.

Were you not paying attention to those posts?

vigras rojara said:
And of course you then have to wonder why the people who might be able to have a decent go at it, just aren't interested in doing so.
Click to expand...
A decent go at 'it'

Are you conflating secession and holding a referendum?

I think you may be.

Calling a referendum requires the co-operation of politicians, who as I have pointed out, are human beings and subject to overwhelming incentives, just like the rest of us.

When a referendum could lead to the end of their career, you have what is called in common parlance 'a conflict of interest'.

So don't paint the false picture as though it were only up to members of the CIM, to get a referendum delivered.

vigras rojara said:
I know what your reply will be to that, but that's ok. It just ain't happening.
Click to expand...
 
lexity said:
Well of course in an undemocratic system that's kind of what we are stuck with right?

I mean we know the bias of media that is funded through that undemocratic elevation of influencers.

I have also just pointed out the perverse incentives present in looking to politicians to help you usher in a potentially career-ending pro-Democratic solution.

Were you not paying attention to those posts?


A decent go at 'it'

Are you conflating secession and holding a referendum?

I think you may be.

Calling a referendum requires the co-operation of politicians, who as I have pointed out, are human beings and subject to overwhelming incentives, just like the rest of us.

When a referendum could lead to the end of their career, you have what is called in common parlance 'a conflict of interest'.

So don't paint the false picture as though it were only up to members of the CIM, to get a referendum delivered.
Click to expand...

"A decent go at it" refers to secession, not just to a referendum.

Even the current bunch of clowns should be able to organise a private referendum, if they have the support they claim to. It shouldn't be difficult to raise the funding.

A private referendum carrying a motion to separate would give the CI movement great credibility, so it seems amazing that they haven't tried.

The only logical answer to that is that they know it would go against them - and with it, the CI grift. So they don't.
 
Lex, you agree that the massive majority believes in the vote system, yes?

So how do you explain the terrible election outcome for CIM? They could have at least had a chance to get to parliament, have a voice if nothing else.
It screams of "I don't wanna take a chance". Don't deny it.
 
vigras rojara said:
"A decent go at it" refers to secession, not just to a referendum.

Even the current bunch of clowns should be able to organise a private referendum, if they have the support they claim to. It shouldn't be difficult to raise the funding.

A private referendum carrying a motion to separate would give the CI movement great credibility, so it seems amazing that they haven't tried.

The only logical answer to that is that they know it would go against them - and with it, the CI grift. So they don't.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you're going here, they are trying both - on a very mild, no-action level so far anyway.
 
Brian_G said:
Not sure where you're going here, they are trying it - on a very mild, no-action level so far anyway.
Click to expand...

In other words, they're doing nothing?

Generally if people aren't happy with the country they're living in, they consider emigration. That takes a lot of energy, planning, resources and the ability to actually execute. And that's just for one person, or a family.

Now how much more would you need to do to be able to create a whole new country? To say it's on a vastly different scale is a gross understatement, it would require something massive (TM MyBB).

And that's just it - their mild, no action approach and waffling about commies just isn't anywhere close. It's a joke. No-one takes them seriously and expecting a taxpayer funded referendum is somewhat entitled.
 
vigras rojara said:
"A decent go at it" refers to secession, not just to a referendum.

Even the current bunch of clowns should be able to organise a private referendum, if they have the support they claim to. It shouldn't be difficult to raise the funding.

A private referendum carrying a motion to separate would give the CI movement great credibility, so it seems amazing that they haven't tried.

The only logical answer to that is that they know it would go against them - and with it, the CI grift. So they don't.
Click to expand...
I agree, there is an element of uncertainty.

And I would say it is created by the undemocratic response by the DA and the premier.

We know that polling at election times, for instance, has resulted in lost CI votes, that required court intervention to restore.

There are things in politics, which are unsavory. Most people reserve some level of circumspection due to this commonly held view.

Also, the polls show a drop in interest, so there is that, too.

But the attempted renewal of enthusiam for the Rainbow project via the GNU, is fast wearing off. It's just matter of time before the GNU missteps once too often, and/or complies with the dictates of the Epstein class... to the further disruption of the people on the sharp/bleeding end.

We will then again be in a number go up scenario. I suspect that is a main part of what the CIAG is waiting for.

The only mitigation I can see, to SA's ongoing decline, is mitigation that none of you pinkos are willing to acknowledge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X