23 June 2019 Istanbul mayoral election

[Duhon]

Ah, freeing the strongman to strongarm the rest to their certain destruction. Supremely understandable -- and contemptible.

Strongmen are often good leaders and not necessarily dictators.

What bullshit.

[Minachia]

The obvious solution to this is to just let a democratic country like, I don't know, Greece handle Constantin- I mean Istanbul's elections, right?

[Shofercia]

The obvious solution to this is to just let a democratic country like, I don't know, Greece handle Constantin- I mean Istanbul's elections, right?

I like this solution

[Shofercia]

Liberals can’t be based or redpilled because they worship mainstream culture and care about the liberal agenda to much to do anything great. Donald trump is however.

Donald Trump isn't based because he clearly cares what the media and intellectuals think about him, as he tweets about it all the time.

He may be redpilled, since he seems to use media outlets like Fox News to influence the electorate and even prime them intellectually for the possibility that he could be constitutionally removed from office, however, if he doesn't actually use this to seize an unconstitutional mandate, I'd be inclined to think it was a fluke.

Liberals can be based and redpilled if they aren't the establishment in a country or international system, for example, Napoleon and Robespierre were liberals who were based and redpilled.

I never thought of Napoleon and Robespierre that way before. Certainly an interesting take on it.

[Negarakita]

An election won by a tiny number of votes where both sides reported electoral irregularities is being rerun? Colour me surprised.

[Major-Tom]

So, how is this different from the the UK's attempts to reverse the Brexit decision? or the US democrats attempt's to reverse the 2016 election?

...You're joking? The AKP lost and is actively re-running the election (do note the AKP and Erdogan has been responsible for Turkey's transition from democracy to what is essentially a dictatorship).

Furthermore, those calling for a re-vote in say, the Democratic caucus, were a loud but effectively tiny minority who knew they couldn't actually re-run the vote. A bunch of despondent Pro-EU folk and despondent Democrats aren't equatable to a man and political party who have effectively put the last nail in the coffin of what was once Turkish democracy.

To equate Erdogan and a vocal minority of poor losers is intellectual dishonesty at it's very finest.

[Major-Tom]

Anyone in Turkey who voted for Erdogan and DIDN'T see him becoming increasingly authoritarian is frankly - dumb.

Unfortunately there is a major educational gap in Turkey. Turks living in predominantly rural areas in large part lack access to anything political that isn't AKP propaganda tactics.

It's not a result of voters being "dumb," rather a case of about half of an electorate having little to no information on the realities of the Turkish government. Outside of Izmir, Istanbul and Ankara, that gap is extremely pronounced.

[Major-Tom]

Oh look, a dictator using the courts to his advantage to make sure he wins.

And they say trump can't do that here

Thankfully, our system of checks and balances as laid out in the Constitution and elsewhere would largely prevent the hypothetical "nightmare scenario" from ever coming to fruition, barring something truly unprecedented.

[Alien Space Bats]

So, how is this different from the the UK's attempts to reverse the Brexit decision? or the US democrats attempt's to reverse the 2016 election?

I'm an American, so my understanding of British politics is limited, but the problem with the U.K.'s current position vis-à-vis Brexit appears to be this: That there are no good ways to implement Brexit, given the Irish border quandary (well, that and the fact that leaving the E.U. is likely to cripple the U.K. economy for at least a decade to come). The Brexit vote is a good example of what's wrong with government by plebiscite: Giving people a simple "Stay" or "Leave" vote on an incredibly complex issue is a sure recipe for disaster. In the U.S., we have the same problem with the issue of Puerto Rican statehood: Puerto Rico keeps trying to resolve the issue through referendums, and keeps getting nowhere, with "Statehood", "Territorial Status", and "Independence" splitting the vote indecisively, and none of the options truly addressing the complex pros and cons of the issue. Parliament should have simply relied on its own judgment to address the issue of the U.K.'s relationship with the E.U., trusting that — as a representative body — Parliament had both the political, moral, and Constitutional power (and with it, the ultimate responsibility) to act in both the name and in the best interests of the British people and resolve the issue on its own (and so, BTW, should Puerto Rico's Legislative Assembly vis-à-vis statehood), letting the people vote their representatives out of office if they don't like what it is they're doing.

Which brings us to the U.S. and the claim that the Democrats are trying to "reverse the 2016 election". What in the Hell does that even mean?

1. Are you griping about the Democrats winning control of the House in 2018? 'Cause that was just another election, and the issue before the voters in 2016 wasn't, "Shall Donald Trump and the Republicans run America from now on?" Each election is a new game, and neither the people nor the participants are bound to let the current party remain in power just because they're the party in power.
   
   
2. Or are you griping about the Democrats seeking to defeat Trump in 2020? 'Cause if you are, refer to the foregoing.
   
   
3. Or is it the investigation of possible wrongdoing on Trump's part, or that of his Cabinet, his closest advisers, etc.?
   Because that's just Congress' JOB. It's called "oversight", and it's among the checks and balances in our system, which are designed to curb abuse by an out-of-control President.
   
   
4. Or is it the threat of impeachment? Because if THAT'S it, you have no cause to complain, either. After all:
   
   
   1. Donald Trump wouldn't be facing impeachment if he hadn't committed multiple counts of obstruction of justice, ordered his Administration to defy lawful Congressional subpoenas, ordered his Cabinet officials to break the law, and otherwise abused his authority in half a hundred ways. After all, we didn't elect a King in 2016 (as much as Donald Trump would like to think we did); we elected a President — and Presidents have limits on their authority, beginning with the requirement that they work within the Constitution and obey the law.
      
      
   2. The Republicans will never consent to allow their beloved Tin God to be removed from office, so the matter is moot: Trump will never be removed from office through impeachment regardless of his criminality and his undisguised desire to be America's first dictator. So what's the point of bitching about an effort that's certain to fail?
      
      
   3. If by some miracle Trump DOES get removed from office through impeachment, Mike Pence will become President, not Hillary Clinton (or some other Democrat). So how in the Hell would THAT constitute "reversing the 2016 election"?!? Do you honestly believe that the Democrats love them some Mike Pence like nobody's business and are just pining to death to see him become President?

So no, neither of these are like what Erdogan is doing in Turkey. Not even close.

[The Lone Alliance]

No surprise.

They will vote and vote until they vote the "right" way.

Not like the EU hasn't done that themselves.

[Pasong Tirad]

Turkey should just crown Erdogan a Sultan and be done with all this hiding behind the thin facade of democratic processes.

[Shofercia]

So, how is this different from the the UK's attempts to reverse the Brexit decision? or the US democrats attempt's to reverse the 2016 election?

I'm an American, so my understanding of British politics is limited, but the problem with the U.K.'s current position vis-à-vis Brexit appears to be this: That there are no good ways to implement Brexit, given the Irish border quandary (well, that and the fact that leaving the E.U. is likely to cripple the U.K. economy for at least a decade to come). The Brexit vote is a good example of what's wrong with government by plebiscite: Giving people a simple "Stay" or "Leave" vote on an incredibly complex issue is a sure recipe for disaster. In the U.S., we have the same problem with the issue of Puerto Rican statehood: Puerto Rico keeps trying to resolve the issue through referendums, and keeps getting nowhere, with "Statehood", "Territorial Status", and "Independence" splitting the vote indecisively, and none of the options truly addressing the complex pros and cons of the issue. Parliament should have simply relied on its own judgment to address the issue of the U.K.'s relationship with the E.U., trusting that — as a representative body — Parliament had both the political, moral, and Constitutional power (and with it, the ultimate responsibility) to act in both the name and in the best interests of the British people and resolve the issue on its own (and so, BTW, should Puerto Rico's Legislative Assembly vis-à-vis statehood), letting the people vote their representatives out of office if they don't like what it is they're doing.

Which brings us to the U.S. and the claim that the Democrats are trying to "reverse the 2016 election". What in the Hell does that even mean?

1. Are you griping about the Democrats winning control of the House in 2018? 'Cause that was just another election, and the issue before the voters in 2016 wasn't, "Shall Donald Trump and the Republicans run America from now on?" Each election is a new game, and neither the people nor the participants are bound to let the current party remain in power just because they're the party in power.
   
   
2. Or are you griping about the Democrats seeking to defeat Trump in 2020? 'Cause if you are, refer to the foregoing.
   
   
3. Or is it the investigation of possible wrongdoing on Trump's part, or that of his Cabinet, his closest advisers, etc.?
   Because that's just Congress' JOB. It's called "oversight", and it's among the checks and balances in our system, which are designed to curb abuse by an out-of-control President.
   
   
4. Or is it the threat of impeachment? Because if THAT'S it, you have no cause to complain, either. After all:
   
   
   1. Donald Trump wouldn't be facing impeachment if he hadn't committed multiple counts of obstruction of justice, ordered his Administration to defy lawful Congressional subpoenas, ordered his Cabinet officials to break the law, and otherwise abused his authority in half a hundred ways. After all, we didn't elect a King in 2016 (as much as Donald Trump would like to think we did); we elected a President — and Presidents have limits on their authority, beginning with the requirement that they work within the Constitution and obey the law.
      
      
   2. The Republicans will never consent to allow their beloved Tin God to be removed from office, so the matter is moot: Trump will never be removed from office through impeachment regardless of his criminality and his undisguised desire to be America's first dictator. So what's the point of bitching about an effort that's certain to fail?
      
      
   3. If by some miracle Trump DOES get removed from office through impeachment, Mike Pence will become President, not Hillary Clinton (or some other Democrat). So how in the Hell would THAT constitute "reversing the 2016 election"?!? Do you honestly believe that the Democrats love them some Mike Pence like nobody's business and are just pining to death to see him become President?

So no, neither of these are like what Erdogan is doing in Turkey. Not even close.

That's not quite the same ASB, and by that, I'm referring to US vs UK. In the US - Republicans set America's Economic Agenda, whereas in the UK, the heel dragging is becoming atrocious. We both realize that the Trump Impeachment accusations are gamesmanship for the 2020 Presidential Election; an anti-BREXIT vote was quite different.

The parts of England that voted to remain are London, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Oh yeah - Gibraltar too. That's it. Quite a few others preferred to leave, precisely because their economic policies are being ignored. You had London vote to remain, and entities that fear London more than Brussels, or detached entities. That's it. And who is setting their economic agenda? Nigel Farage didn't come to power with the BREXIT vote, and all May's actually done is say "ya, ya, big deal, very complex, I drag feet, watch" - whereas in the US we heard economic points from both parties. (Not to be confused with political ranting from both parties)

[Kowani]

Vote all you like, as long as you want what we want.

[Myrensis]

So, how is this different from the the UK's attempts to reverse the Brexit decision? or the US democrats attempt's to reverse the 2016 election?

1. Referendums in the UK are not binding beyond political/electoral considerations for the government

2. Erdogan is actually trying to set aside the election results, not bruising the oppositions paper thin ego by politically opposing them while in office.

[Nakena]

At this point it would probably make more sense if the Istanbul Mayor would be directly appointed by the President.

[Kowani]

At this point it would probably make more sense if the Istanbul Mayor would be directly appointed by the President.

Less paperwork.

[Duhon]

Turkey should just crown Erdogan a Sultan and be done with all this hiding behind the thin facade of democratic processes.

Why give the Turkish people a reason to revolt? Of course Erdogan can crush any insufficiently well-armed and well-planned rebellion, but why waste time, ammo, and money? Throwing a sop is economical, to say the least.

[Califghanistan]

Erdogan is the best thing to happen to Turkey.

[Vassenor]

No surprise.

They will vote and vote until they vote the "right" way.

Not like the EU hasn't done that themselves.

Oh, are people still pushing the Ireland myth? Everybody drink.

[Deutschess Kaiserreich]

Attaturk is rolling in his grave now.

[Duhon]

Erdogan is the best thing to happen to Turkey.

What hot garbage.

[The Free Joy State]

So, how is this different from the the UK's attempts to reverse the Brexit decision? or the US democrats attempt's to reverse the 2016 election?

Erdogan -- the leader of Turkey, and an increasingly authoritarian one -- is actively insisting that the election be rerun, due to the loss of his preferred candidate.

In the UK, there is an increasing percentage of ordinary voters who would like a second referendum (and YouGov polls now consistently show Remain in the lead on a hypothetical second referendum). Those who express their concerns on Brexit are doing so within the law (democracy allows for politicians to have their own opinions, contrary to those of the party leader). Responding to the democratically expressed will of the people (as expressed by and petitions, like this one), by considering decisions and not rushing headfirst (especially on something that will have such a longstanding, and -- many analysts say -- potentially economically devastating effect) is not authoritarianism.

I'm less sure on America. But, from my understanding, US Democrats are democratically using established political systems (the courts, elections) to prevent over-reach by the President (signing executive orders that may be harmful to the nation, investigating potential abuses by the President and those in his Cabinet) and winning elections within the boundaries of the law and so represent those who believe they will best work for their interests. That is also democracy.

EDIT: As for the OP, I'm really not surprised at this. At all. I only wish I were.

[Alien Space Bats]

That's not quite the same ASB, and by that, I'm referring to US vs UK. In the US - Republicans set America's Economic Agenda, whereas in the UK, the heel dragging is becoming atrocious. We both realize that the Trump Impeachment accusations are gamesmanship for the 2020 Presidential Election; an anti-BREXIT vote was quite different.

The parts of England that voted to remain are London, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Oh yeah - Gibraltar too. That's it. Quite a few others preferred to leave, precisely because their economic policies are being ignored. You had London vote to remain, and entities that fear London more than Brussels, or detached entities. That's it. And who is setting their economic agenda? Nigel Farage didn't come to power with the BREXIT vote, and all May's actually done is say "ya, ya, big deal, very complex, I drag feet, watch" - whereas in the US we heard economic points from both parties. (Not to be confused with political ranting from both parties)

I'll wholeheartedly agree that what's going on in the U.K. is very different from what's going on in the U.S.; but my greater point is that those who are calling for the abandonment of Brexit — or even another referendum — have this single point in their favor: The actual task of splitting the U.K. off from the E.U. has proven to be such a Gordian Knot as to beg a rethinking of whether separation is REALLY what the country wants NOW.

And it really does all come down to the Irish border problem, for which there is simply no solution. Separation requires a closed Irish border, and a closed Irish border would be an utter disaster, as it would openly invite a return to the Troubles. And therein lies the best possible justification for another referendum: Did the people of the U.K. REALLY vote for a return to the sectarian violence of Northern Ireland's past, or for increased separatist pressure in Scotland? The "Leave" faction absolutely soft-pedaled the price of "independence", to the point of committing open fraud; does that mean that the people of the U.K. must now accept that they were duped, and burn their country down for the sake of consistency?

Of course, in that sense, the U.S. and U.K. situations are quite similar. In both ("Leave" and Trump), the principal reason for the vote among those who cast it was anger at the status quo; yet we shouldn't then conclude that both electorates must ride their bad decision all the way down to the very pit of Hell. The British people didn't vote to tear their country apart, and the American people didn't vote to burn their Consitution to ash and instantiate a narcissistic asshole as their autocratic ruler for the rest of said would-be tyrant's horrible life. Elections have consequences, to be sure; but electorates can always double back once they get a real taste of those consequences and change their minds. Democracy is not, after all, a binding suicide pact.

[Phoenicaea]

turkey, russia, even italy and argentina. 'post-democratic' regime's illness spreads, marching on the feets of minus habens as regents, in the absense of rule of law.

syria and venezuela are spearhead of this mafia form of government, genocide is what logically follows. we know, our thirst for peace won t be ever satisfied, without justice.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

II.Gezi Parkı Resistance start-up this country american support will not be left to political islamists