We are in an incredibly difficult situation to surmount!!
You see, say an unpleasant ex-murderer who killed an employee of his investing company, for not making large enough profits, goes for election against a vanilla politician, and the world watch. We find we don’t like him.
But its us who can and will be critical. The voters have to decide more from a perspective of what is best for the country, weighing up all factors, but weighting them differently. They will be unhappy about bits, but still may see the answer very differently from us.
Now, observers such as us and any who voted for vanilla, believe that we are morally superior, and see anyone who voted for the unpleasant candidate as unpleasant people, maybe stupid too. They didn’t see the situation as we did. If no vote had occurred, or no one voted for him, then all people are the same. It takes people to vote for him to raise us up above them. We are brighter, more moral, and that’s because there was 1 correct answer, ours, as theirs was wrong, lesser, less intelligent, less moral. We have entered a state of righteousness that is artificial. It doesn’t exist without others being judged as wrong and flawed.
We now are unwilling to consider that we may have picked differently if we were voting. We will not be able to consider that some analysed every situation, every route forward, future states and options etc. And saw that that choice was much better for the country and all of our futures, and picked him still. Our new morality is dependent on his voters being immoral and stupid.
We are on top. Why look up? no one can be there, right?
Would we find another explanation if we did look up? They shouldnt be up there. They are just deluded, perhaps?
We are stuck in our own trap! And it applies to all, The BBC find the objectionable people it only believes exist. It’s all anti-immigrant. Proud racists are easy to find, when they want to be, and are all searched for.
Now Brexit voters know hiding is wise, because, they will never persuade anyone they are something that destroys the moral perch of whoever interviews them. You are pretending it’s about other matters, but its immigration really. You are fighting war you can’t win. Never has news a society been in such a bubble of fiction.
Clinton:- vanilla, nothing positive that stands out much but better vanilla than worse, so a tool to prevent candidate a.
the result depends on candidate a being seen as better or worse than vanilla(no change) in some way
So, it almost becomes: vote for Trump, or vote against Trump.
We can rule Clinton out, pretty much:-
Choice: Trump, yes or no?
group a, american voters
group b, rest of world
group 1, those that are instantly taken with what the rest of us see as racist, sexist, or otherwise objectionable views.
group 2, the remaining majority, who see those things as objectionable, and cant consider voting that way.
Effect 1: There is a circular effect, where the media obviously interview supporters, they are seen by us as stupid, morons, as we expect from supporters of such ignorant and distasteful views from a not very bright person, and our views are reinforced, the media highlight this more and more and so on
One day, my 7 month old HTC one prime phone’s backlight started to go. It flickered a little when touching the screen, and finally went. If you got the screen at a perfect angle to a bright light and looked very closely, you could see that it was working, just not lit up and so completely black for all but those who didnt know how to angle it correctly and get close and strain hard. Whilst waiting to send it to HTC UK for repair, and not being used, the battery died . I sent it back.
Soon after, they had reached a conclusion. The diagnosis was a list of 20 or more parts, in fact every single part to make a new phone, and a bill for approximately what i paid to buy it. It said that the damage wasnt covered by the warranty. Did they realise it was almost new ? .
Dear James Cook
Our initial assessment of your device indicates that the repair work required is caused by damage that isn’t covered by warranty. Unfortunately, this means we must charge you for the repair.
We have prepared a quote for you which you can view, accept and pay for at
If you decide not to complete this repair, your device will be returned to you following receipt of payment for the administration and shipping costs incurred. You may use the same link as above to arrange this.
Cable,HIROSE,XFL-2LP-044N2TS-A-100,8HT,Black,w/o CE Label
Cable,HIROSE,XFL-2LP-044N2TS-A-100,8HT,Black,w/o CE Label
Cable,HIROSE,XFL-2LP9-032H2TS-A-23HT,Dark Gray,w/o CE Label,GPS
Cable,HIROSE,XFL-2LP9-032H1TS-A-16,5HT,White,w/o CE Label
Please bill me for the full repair
I was amazed. What kind of diagnosis was this, that wrote it off with no explanation, and effectively blamed me??
They must list some parts, but all is the most unspecific choice.
They listed every part, even the SIM &SD drawers i was asked to retain.
Its so specifically unspecific and vague whilst specifically careful not to be slighly specific about anything that could lead anywhere but maximal vaguity.
.No parts isnt an option, and anything less than every part may be less vague than fully, and restrictive , as you will see., but its so perfectly inspecific that it isnt a random anomaly.
HTC Repair in the UK is outsourced by HTC UK, so support and repair are not the same company. This is where they know that motivation pressures differ from those of them affecting keeping internal. Of course, other aspects may be favourable to them.
So no diagnosis but that, no reason, but not covered by warranty they are sure about then?? although no reason why?? hmmm…
So started my alls & messages to HTC UK Suport:-
They had very little & seemed asmuch in the dark aß me. They couldnt explain it, but offered me what little they had that i didnt, except for any test-rig report.
They said that they had a standardd image that they take when raken back cover off, but didnt seem to see how helpful it would be…..
I accepted the offer. This is what i got, the lack of knowledge was almost in sync now, between us….
Good Day James,
Thank you for contacting HTC Customer Care Support.
Kindly check the attached photo that was provided by the repair center as per your request.
If you need Any Further assistance, kindly call us on 442036848000 or 448458900079
Monday to Saturday from 9:00 Am to 6:00 Pm
so, half an image with a red box that covers all the phone where components are, except a thin strip on the bottom left. Vague?
seeing as the box i s mising its bottom, it is almost fully vague, yet half sent so as to leave options open. basically….whaaaat?
Repair and Reality
If repair is outsourced, how do HTC know what they do?
Each repair case is in a database, shared between repair and support
The phones details, customer description of problem are entered by support
Repair take standard photos, ie external?, pop back off , & are supposed to take pictures of any obvious damage too
repair put it on a testrig, and the results go into the file
Now, while the backs off, repair decide what to do to fix it, how long it will take, what parts are needed, what HTC know, and finally how profitable the time is fixing plus extras.
Do they now want to fix it?
The unknown is not desirable.
You see, the fix ideally happens now.
Once started, they are commited after a point. ie, when tape etc is removed. So know if profitable fix 1st, so know time. if horrid long job,
Is there obvious damage that shows its users fault that HTC will see, or test report proof that means it cant be fixed now. (which is undesirable )….OR,…. if they didnt want to fix it, as can they find anything to show user fault,( which is desirable)?
They took the back off, tested it, then kept going as far as they could. But still beliēved they had the same problem. mainboard, despite no test proo
test reults. …. nil, maybe battery
glue ball model
cheaper phone….time to fix at rate required means fast fix only
no replace main board , ….. too long….so,
so, write off for all but simple
work in progrresss
If you didnt want to fix it, theres no better way to frame blame me without any justification.
This was the start of many calls, messages, e-mails and tweets to get nowhere fast.
Initially, it seemed there was no diagnosis, just more explanation that amounted to damage internally not guaranteed.
Finally, after weeks, and my repair being case ‘escalated ‘ they said liquid damage, observed on external inspection. This was crazy.
I had it sent back, without paying for ‘repair’.
It was immaculate still, but with the back hanging off and screws missing.
It had had the back taken off, and very little else in terms of taking it apart, obvious from the fact tape hadn’t been touched much that needed removing to strip it further.. They hadnt a clue what was wrong and hadnt bothered to look very far, finally realising liquid damage was a nice reason to use for not doing so, when pushed by me at a later date……….
It doesnt add up in so many ways…….
After taking the back off and taking a photo of the inside for the repair file(which is standard procedure for repair jobs with them it seems), they possibly did no more or may have tried to power it up by bypassing the battery, finding that nothing appears on the screen too, decided anything ould be broken, and to find out wat would be a nightmare of swapping many parts potentially. So they wrote it off. And they blamed me despite knowing why. Then because i kept challenging their non-diagnosis, they were finally forced to fit one to the situation, and liquid damage was a good reason that they perhaps know works on most people and can fit a write off scenario. Check mate, perhaps , but only then was I told that this was as far as i could go. The case had been escalated, twice and referred to seniors and now, after many many explanations, none amounting to more than typical explain and sound confident and nothing can seem like something to the public, yet, im not, ive been a programmer for 30 years, i hear it all the time. Anyway, now, and only now, im told liquid damage and its the end of the line, so i must decide to pay for a new phone or have it returned or let them dispose of it. Now they offer 15% off another phone, or free return unfixed, rather than just under 30pounds before. So, i have a reason, i am not getting further, and, i have incentive too, decide now. This ‘final stage’ of support gives me a diagnosis that is supposedly the diagnosis in the first place, its just been explained now, apparently is the case they can only really be making, without saying it. Otherwise, nothing makes sense, which it now doesnt anyway. Liquid damage observed from an external inspection? It didnt even require opening it was that obvious? Id like to know how it took so long to explain something they absolutely must have known before taking it apart. As once apart, the case is a shell with holes that cannot display liquid damage, so, that leaves the usb port and card drawers and the screen. The port and card slots and screen are now being internally inspected, so, to suggest these mens before opening, and the cover cannot yield anything whilst open as it can’t be damaged or show signs alone. So, this diagnosis was after stripping a little, etc and putting together, which is preposterous, or before opening, and so why not mentioned earlier? It is impossible to argue anything other than liquid damage observed before opening, in card slots s or usb port or under screen….or a logic bombshell unwinds, that i wont go into further. The diagnosis was just a problem of miscommunication that i should have heard way before is all they can argue.
This is the beginning of the end…..
(to be explained further)
I have been a supporter & fan of HTC since they made phones for others, when they seemed to always be ahead of the game, after falling in love with my old Orange SPV C500 Smartphone, before smartphones were a thing, and so I have been through all of these HTC phones to date:-
O2 XDA II (HTC) 2003
Orange SPV C500 (HTC) 2004
HTC Wildfire 2010
HTC One S 2012
HTC One M7 2013
HTC One M8 2015
HTC One M9 Prime 2016
I really liked my M8, but when it was stolen I had to buy the M9 Prime rather than buy the latest HTC again, the HTC 10, which was a shame as it felt like id finally swapped my phone for something half the price, but i was broke at the time, and it was half a HTC 10’s price.
Within 6 months, this phone had broken, my 1st HTC to ever break.
One day my HTC M9 screen backlight failed, making it almost impossible to see anything on the screen or use the phone. It came back but would flicker on and off if the phone was tapped, and went again a day later. As i was preparing to send it to HTC, it was unused for a couple of weeks. When i went to send it, the phone appeared as if the battery was dead. It appeared to have no power at all, and was impossible to charge. I sent it off, under its 1 year guarantee still.
Wiki:- A factor traditionally held to diminish the value of “Populism” as a category has been that, as Margaret Canovan notes in her 1981 study Populism, Populists rarely call themselves “Populists” and usually reject the term when it is applied to them.
So, it is Populist if we didn’t agree with it, and anything described as Populist that I voted for is incorrectly described. Sounds familiar?
The real common thread that the label of #Populism often causes people to miss, is that of perceived modern democratic deficit, that of a need of better democracy, or rather one that acts as it should and sees the public in the correct way. This is a growing requirement all the time and is now starting to make a significant change to national elections and views. Politicians views do not gel with public requirements. They live in a world where they are exposed to the public enough for people to be able to get a very good view of their philosophies and their psychologies. We have reached a tipping point where the old politicians rules of avoidance and denial can be seen as not understanding their place as public employees. Sure, the media try to trip them up, but when the questions are valid and the answers not, it becomes a problem.
The problem is that 1st we need to separate the term into its 2 parts: Being popular/more favoured purely in terms of votes received; and something akin to a craze or trend.
In the 2nd case, if something is a trend or craze, that means that it is explained without needing individual reasoning or argument. If something is popular, it is popular for a reason which we look to identify, but if it is populist, then we are saying that its somewhat without reason apart from just what everyone else is doing. So when we say something is populist, we can mean that it is without any reason or argument that can be made, except trend, but maybe we could mean that it is a little popular too, in which case there may have been some reason why it was popular. Basically, whatever is heavily voted for, whether it wins or loses, is going to be popular, but we don’t say populist, so we really mean the populist end of the popular/populist scope of populist.
It’s rather final as a term, because it allows us to believe that it has little logic driving its behaviour.
Then if the choice with logic isn’t that choice, its likely to be the opposite choice. So the very definition seems to add validity, wisdom, and balance to any opposing argument.
Anyone wishing to argue otherwise, is also arguing that your opinion isn’t the voice of reason that it so conveniently seemed to have become.
#Populism as we mean now, is a psychological trap, probably a sign of missing the real reason.
#Populism is a word allowing you to stroke your own ego. It often means that it had no valid reason except pure fashion, so i picked correctly.
#Populism is so psychologically convenient when not agreeing but of course sense prevailed when you do agree. either way, youre voice of reason!
I voted, but lost, but should have won.
Populism suggests no other real justification.
I voted but the populists won, I tried to save us, despite the illogical mob behaviour prevailing for no real reason, except that of hyping themselves up into a frenzy. if no reason, then i must have picked correctly. so it makes me correct by its use, correct and the voice moral reason despite the foolish masses.
It is a horrendously dangerous term, and causes any attempt to find reason have low expectations initially, and so the populists end up all being racist, or thick, or both, despite the fact that it’s probably not the case at all, and that one or 2 bad apples happened to tar a whole argument because you were already only looking to increase the power of your position by finding a worse reason than that of you original populism reason, which was bad enough in the first place.
In each case, the result shows people want change. They want something other than what they see as a system that is only superficially dependent upon them, during elections, but the choices are “all the same”. What people mean is that after elections, the people’s wishes are not in mirrored by their elected proxy, and it is really is far from what they see as democratic. The public are a means to an end for most politicians. They are useful as a tool when they want what the politician wants, to back up their argument, but for the most part are superfluous.
When the public are least likely to agree with a course of action, the more chance they wont be considered worth consulting. The politicians know this, but don’t see it as necessary.
The public should be represented by their representative, in a way that mirrors how they would decide themselves. It doesn’t require consultation necessarily always, if the politician does as they know they should really.
BUT, the public may not be able to choose without enough understanding in some cases, is the argument that some MPs may offer. In some cases this may be true, and can be fixed easily as you will see. It also is rather a dangerous argument, as it may make the politician assume they know enough too easily,and become applied always afterwards to other situations. What we need is a way for them to see what the public who understand would decide. It is often easy to assume if someone doesn’t agree that they aren’t up to speed, and so dismiss those that may understand better than yourself.
How the act of deciding not to have a written constitution may solve the problems better
“There was recently a definite movement towards something that has at the moment been named a written constitution”
“It seems that some feel a need for this thing”
“But what is it we actually need?”
“There are definite arguments against a written constitution as well as for”
“This hole that is wished filled, is for something, but a written constitution is not the answer to the problem. What is the problem that some feel needs filling? Is there a better solution. One that looks at the problem at a different level, and so keeps our flexible system as is, yet provides more clarity and is felt more useful, more important, more relevant by the public and the government”
“No change at all to our constitution, but a meta-constitution. A definition of terms, such as government, democracy, MP, Minister, PM, Party, Public, Elected official etc. A list of flaws, maybe even views of each from each others perspective. No views considered wrong to start with. An ideal direct pure democracy, as defined as everyone deciding directly in every matter, and the majority decision being followed. But we have a practical democracy of elected proxies. They are our trusted choices that we elect to do as we would wish, if we had the time to research every matter fully and had full knowledge of the matter we were voting upon and its implications. They should do as we would, if we all could. ”
“MPs should vote as their electorate would, if they all had full knowledge. Now, sure, MPs shouldnt necessarily vote as their electorate see things, and their argument that they have to protect us from bad decisions is valid, however, it is dangerous. They should be voting as their electorate would wish if fully informed. An attitude that they are there to decide for us, because we are incapable, is a problem. The assumption that they are in full knowledge of the facts and their implications is maybe taken too quickly or easily when they see or believe they are ‘above’ their electorate. It can lead to a belief that if they are better, they are fit to decide. This may prevent them from seeing that they need to understand the problem and its implications properly. It can lead to a kind of arrogance perhaps.”
“When people see their MPs voting in a way that is obviously not as a proxy for a fully informed public (ie. when the subject is more straightforward, so that more of the population see their decision is not as theirs would be), then the public see this as a kind of arrogant abuse of their position as a servant, as a proxy, as a trusted representative, and often it seems as though their MP believes they are incapable of being in the position of one of many that is used to shape that MPs decision. The MP is now on their own, their own proxy, and talk of an electorate is just that of convenience when it suits them. This is a problem”
“I suppose I am conservative in my views, but here the problem looks worse most often. One event is just that, one event, but several, slightly suspicious events, becomes a pattern. Unfortunately every small thing adds up and paints a picture. The last PM can give honours to his favourite dog walker if he wants, he’s done his part, and he tried, and it didn’t go his way, and well, I can kind of see he tried, and well, he felt he did his best, and now he is off, and so why not look after those close. Then deciding staying to represent his constituents was what he wanted, even after being PM, but oh, no cabinet position for me? actually, im out of here. One thing alone is nothing, but things add up, and tar all im afraid. I can’t say those actions were a problem for him. They were a problem for the party, because they were the honesty at the end, that lingers on and ends up adding to the conservative picture, that picture of how the world sees conservative MPs, as a mix of all the stories of all of them, averaged out. I see real hope with our new MP, I really do. She is the once in a lifetime PM for me. I really know she sees the world how I want her to, and I hear her saying what I was just thinking. I just hope it doesn’t all collapse around impatience. Theres so much she could do, that is so easy. We do a lot, that people don’t know about. We have so much good news we havent taken advantage of. Anyway, I digress…”
“So, back to the Meta-Constitution…. A statement of definitions, goals, roles, flaws, fairly expressed, all sides views are important, government need the tools, the ability to work better, more enjoyably, more efficiently. This should address it all. A statement of bounds, the ideal, where questions and decisions are worded unfairly, or good bundled with a little bad to get bad through. The government actually do quite well digitally, and yet, there are small areas where it could all be made to shine that they just miss. The PM really is sitting on gold. You send a message to government and you know you may as well be deleting it instead and saving everyone the time of not reading it. They don’t want to read most the almost identical nonsense emails, i suppose. It would be so easy to cut public emails down vastly, and have less to read, yet everybody get more out of the system. As a software developer, I can see several places where almost nothing would become everything. Where it can all be put together. God knows why it hasn’t. And I digress again…..”
You have shelved the written constitution. I understand the thinking behind one but suggest it wasnt the answer, there is a better one. I suggest we solve the real problem in a better easier way that is more effective and popular for you.
Better way and why
We need a contract, definition, or a statement of role, goals or purpose, and I will explain why this is what will fill that public need, and make you popular, but allow you more control.
The real way
A definition of our representative democracy, MP’s, government, and publics’ purpose and goals.
A definition of a democracy, a representative democracy, electorate’s, MP’s, and government minister and employees purpose, and maybe a discussion of real world flaws
Public problem with government
The real problem is that government still behaves as they did 100 years ago, as if they have the power over life and death of the public rather than as working on behalf of the public.
People understand what democracy is defined as, and see that is not what they are getting. Their MPs don’t act as their proxies, even as a proxy for a public in full possession of the facts to decide correctly. They consider themselves the last line of defence of the public choosing badly, which prevents introspection into their own lack of understanding.
How to not do it
MPs like Arlene Foster who put herself and her job above peace, and play chicken with NI.
Her fault or not, her job is to look after NI above all else. She is not in employment court, yet she treats it like that.
We ask voters what the chance is that they will vote for Trump, Clinton or someone else, using a 0-100 scale. The overall level of support for each candidate reflects the weighted average of those responses.