Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"sadly, there isn't anyone. The man offends people, but got the job done better than anyone else. If he offends you, your already gone or irrelevant, so just enjoy the economy, the border stance and energy independence and STFU." A nice moderate reasoned argument for   | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"sadly, there isn't anyone. The man offends people, but got the job done better than anyone else. If he offends you, your already gone or irrelevant, so just enjoy the economy, the border stance and energy independence and STFU." I think the problem was the job he got done was to give himself and his pals tax cuts, say a lot of random nonsense on Twitter, egg on a violent attack on the capital, try to subvert democracy by asking for extra votes to be found. That he's a profoundly unlikeable person doesn't really make him much different to any other option. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only man to lose wealth while serving, didn't take a paycheck." Good point, incompetent too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"sadly, there isn't anyone. The man offends people, but got the job done better than anyone else. If he offends you, your already gone or irrelevant, so just enjoy the economy, the border stance and energy independence and STFU." I am going to say something that is probably going to surprise people 1) I think Niki Haley could beat Biden in a general election matchup… but trump and desantis will get crushed 2) I don’t think Biden would have run for a second term if trump had not of run……. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"sadly, there isn't anyone. The man offends people, but got the job done better than anyone else. If he offends you, your already gone or irrelevant, so just enjoy the economy, the border stance and energy independence and STFU. I am going to say something that is probably going to surprise people 1) I think Niki Haley could beat Biden in a general election matchup… but trump and desantis will get crushed 2) I don’t think Biden would have run for a second term if trump had not of run……." Haha “Trump and DeSantis will get crushed”! What, if Biden can stay awake long enough. You are watching too much CNN. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"sadly, there isn't anyone. The man offends people, but got the job done better than anyone else. If he offends you, your already gone or irrelevant, so just enjoy the economy, the border stance and energy independence and STFU. I am going to say something that is probably going to surprise people 1) I think Niki Haley could beat Biden in a general election matchup… but trump and desantis will get crushed 2) I don’t think Biden would have run for a second term if trump had not of run……. Haha “Trump and DeSantis will get crushed”! What, if Biden can stay awake long enough. You are watching too much CNN." It’s forever the CNN shot… are you that much of a one trick pony! Do you ever watch any of the town halls or republican primary debates? The general rule of thumb in that in the primaries you run to the left/right and in the general you tack back towards the centre… Haley can absolutely do that… trump and desantis are too far to the right to do that! Just got thru the Haley and desantis town halls last night… and for the first time I was impressed by both of them, and it’s the first time they have both gone after trump rather than give him deference!! The last GOP debate next week where it will just be Haley and desantis on the stage ( because trump will skip.. which I think is a bad idea!) will be fascinating to see if they will turn on each other.. or carve up trump! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"sadly, there isn't anyone. The man offends people, but got the job done better than anyone else. If he offends you, your already gone or irrelevant, so just enjoy the economy, the border stance and energy independence and STFU. I am going to say something that is probably going to surprise people 1) I think Niki Haley could beat Biden in a general election matchup… but trump and desantis will get crushed 2) I don’t think Biden would have run for a second term if trump had not of run……. Haha “Trump and DeSantis will get crushed”! What, if Biden can stay awake long enough. You are watching too much CNN. It’s forever the CNN shot… are you that much of a one trick pony! Do you ever watch any of the town halls or republican primary debates? The general rule of thumb in that in the primaries you run to the left/right and in the general you tack back towards the centre… Haley can absolutely do that… trump and desantis are too far to the right to do that! Just got thru the Haley and desantis town halls last night… and for the first time I was impressed by both of them, and it’s the first time they have both gone after trump rather than give him deference!! The last GOP debate next week where it will just be Haley and desantis on the stage ( because trump will skip.. which I think is a bad idea!) will be fascinating to see if they will turn on each other.. or carve up trump!" Trump is doing the right thing by not turning up. He is just letting the children play. He is the adult who has more important things to be doing. He will win the nomination anyway by a mile so the debates are just a sideshow. To be honest I think DeSantis and Haley are both okay, though there is a lot of animosity towards Haley in Republican circles. Vivek is obviously a superstar of some kind and he speaks some truths which need to be said. Having a load of politicians standing around saying the same thing all the time is pointless. I agree that Haley and DeSantis will more likely beat Biden than Trump, but Trump is in with a fair chance I would say. Biden’s ability to preform in an election campaign is an unknown factor and must be making the Democrats extremely nervous. He won’t be able to rely on the media silencing Trump this time around, and Hunter’s dirty laundry is there for all to see. The electorate aren’t swallowing the whole Bidenomics thing, they know perfectly well whether they are better off or not under Biden. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"sadly, there isn't anyone. The man offends people, but got the job done better than anyone else. If he offends you, your already gone or irrelevant, so just enjoy the economy, the border stance and energy independence and STFU. I am going to say something that is probably going to surprise people 1) I think Niki Haley could beat Biden in a general election matchup… but trump and desantis will get crushed 2) I don’t think Biden would have run for a second term if trump had not of run……. Haha “Trump and DeSantis will get crushed”! What, if Biden can stay awake long enough. You are watching too much CNN. It’s forever the CNN shot… are you that much of a one trick pony! Do you ever watch any of the town halls or republican primary debates? The general rule of thumb in that in the primaries you run to the left/right and in the general you tack back towards the centre… Haley can absolutely do that… trump and desantis are too far to the right to do that! Just got thru the Haley and desantis town halls last night… and for the first time I was impressed by both of them, and it’s the first time they have both gone after trump rather than give him deference!! The last GOP debate next week where it will just be Haley and desantis on the stage ( because trump will skip.. which I think is a bad idea!) will be fascinating to see if they will turn on each other.. or carve up trump! Trump is doing the right thing by not turning up. He is just letting the children play. He is the adult who has more important things to be doing. He will win the nomination anyway by a mile so the debates are just a sideshow. To be honest I think DeSantis and Haley are both okay, though there is a lot of animosity towards Haley in Republican circles. Vivek is obviously a superstar of some kind and he speaks some truths which need to be said. Having a load of politicians standing around saying the same thing all the time is pointless. I agree that Haley and DeSantis will more likely beat Biden than Trump, but Trump is in with a fair chance I would say. Biden’s ability to preform in an election campaign is an unknown factor and must be making the Democrats extremely nervous. He won’t be able to rely on the media silencing Trump this time around, and Hunter’s dirty laundry is there for all to see. The electorate aren’t swallowing the whole Bidenomics thing, they know perfectly well whether they are better off or not under Biden. " I reckon you're Johnny's alter ego.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"sadly, there isn't anyone. The man offends people, but got the job done better than anyone else. If he offends you, your already gone or irrelevant, so just enjoy the economy, the border stance and energy independence and STFU. I am going to say something that is probably going to surprise people 1) I think Niki Haley could beat Biden in a general election matchup… but trump and desantis will get crushed 2) I don’t think Biden would have run for a second term if trump had not of run……. Haha “Trump and DeSantis will get crushed”! What, if Biden can stay awake long enough. You are watching too much CNN. It’s forever the CNN shot… are you that much of a one trick pony! Do you ever watch any of the town halls or republican primary debates? The general rule of thumb in that in the primaries you run to the left/right and in the general you tack back towards the centre… Haley can absolutely do that… trump and desantis are too far to the right to do that! Just got thru the Haley and desantis town halls last night… and for the first time I was impressed by both of them, and it’s the first time they have both gone after trump rather than give him deference!! The last GOP debate next week where it will just be Haley and desantis on the stage ( because trump will skip.. which I think is a bad idea!) will be fascinating to see if they will turn on each other.. or carve up trump! Trump is doing the right thing by not turning up. He is just letting the children play. He is the adult who has more important things to be doing. He will win the nomination anyway by a mile so the debates are just a sideshow. To be honest I think DeSantis and Haley are both okay, though there is a lot of animosity towards Haley in Republican circles. Vivek is obviously a superstar of some kind and he speaks some truths which need to be said. Having a load of politicians standing around saying the same thing all the time is pointless. I agree that Haley and DeSantis will more likely beat Biden than Trump, but Trump is in with a fair chance I would say. Biden’s ability to preform in an election campaign is an unknown factor and must be making the Democrats extremely nervous. He won’t be able to rely on the media silencing Trump this time around, and Hunter’s dirty laundry is there for all to see. The electorate aren’t swallowing the whole Bidenomics thing, they know perfectly well whether they are better off or not under Biden. I reckon you're Johnny's alter ego. "Lol I don't know if I could be brazen enough to say things like. "Vivek is obviously a superstar of some kind and he speaks some truths which need to be said." Even in jest!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"sadly, there isn't anyone. The man offends people, but got the job done better than anyone else. If he offends you, your already gone or irrelevant, so just enjoy the economy, the border stance and energy independence and STFU. I am going to say something that is probably going to surprise people 1) I think Niki Haley could beat Biden in a general election matchup… but trump and desantis will get crushed 2) I don’t think Biden would have run for a second term if trump had not of run……. Haha “Trump and DeSantis will get crushed”! What, if Biden can stay awake long enough. You are watching too much CNN. It’s forever the CNN shot… are you that much of a one trick pony! Do you ever watch any of the town halls or republican primary debates? The general rule of thumb in that in the primaries you run to the left/right and in the general you tack back towards the centre… Haley can absolutely do that… trump and desantis are too far to the right to do that! Just got thru the Haley and desantis town halls last night… and for the first time I was impressed by both of them, and it’s the first time they have both gone after trump rather than give him deference!! The last GOP debate next week where it will just be Haley and desantis on the stage ( because trump will skip.. which I think is a bad idea!) will be fascinating to see if they will turn on each other.. or carve up trump! Trump is doing the right thing by not turning up. He is just letting the children play. He is the adult who has more important things to be doing. He will win the nomination anyway by a mile so the debates are just a sideshow. To be honest I think DeSantis and Haley are both okay, though there is a lot of animosity towards Haley in Republican circles. Vivek is obviously a superstar of some kind and he speaks some truths which need to be said. Having a load of politicians standing around saying the same thing all the time is pointless. I agree that Haley and DeSantis will more likely beat Biden than Trump, but Trump is in with a fair chance I would say. Biden’s ability to preform in an election campaign is an unknown factor and must be making the Democrats extremely nervous. He won’t be able to rely on the media silencing Trump this time around, and Hunter’s dirty laundry is there for all to see. The electorate aren’t swallowing the whole Bidenomics thing, they know perfectly well whether they are better off or not under Biden. I reckon you're Johnny's alter ego.
Lol
I don't know if I could be brazen enough to say things like.
"Vivek is obviously a superstar of some kind and he speaks some truths which need to be said."
Even in jest!
"I think Johnny is just Momentum’s first attempt at a bot. Forgot to turn it off when they all went home. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"sadly, there isn't anyone. The man offends people, but got the job done better than anyone else. If he offends you, your already gone or irrelevant, so just enjoy the economy, the border stance and energy independence and STFU. I am going to say something that is probably going to surprise people 1) I think Niki Haley could beat Biden in a general election matchup… but trump and desantis will get crushed 2) I don’t think Biden would have run for a second term if trump had not of run……. Haha “Trump and DeSantis will get crushed”! What, if Biden can stay awake long enough. You are watching too much CNN. It’s forever the CNN shot… are you that much of a one trick pony! Do you ever watch any of the town halls or republican primary debates? The general rule of thumb in that in the primaries you run to the left/right and in the general you tack back towards the centre… Haley can absolutely do that… trump and desantis are too far to the right to do that! Just got thru the Haley and desantis town halls last night… and for the first time I was impressed by both of them, and it’s the first time they have both gone after trump rather than give him deference!! The last GOP debate next week where it will just be Haley and desantis on the stage ( because trump will skip.. which I think is a bad idea!) will be fascinating to see if they will turn on each other.. or carve up trump! Trump is doing the right thing by not turning up. He is just letting the children play. He is the adult who has more important things to be doing. He will win the nomination anyway by a mile so the debates are just a sideshow. To be honest I think DeSantis and Haley are both okay, though there is a lot of animosity towards Haley in Republican circles. Vivek is obviously a superstar of some kind and he speaks some truths which need to be said. Having a load of politicians standing around saying the same thing all the time is pointless. I agree that Haley and DeSantis will more likely beat Biden than Trump, but Trump is in with a fair chance I would say. Biden’s ability to preform in an election campaign is an unknown factor and must be making the Democrats extremely nervous. He won’t be able to rely on the media silencing Trump this time around, and Hunter’s dirty laundry is there for all to see. The electorate aren’t swallowing the whole Bidenomics thing, they know perfectly well whether they are better off or not under Biden. I reckon you're Johnny's alter ego.
Lol
I don't know if I could be brazen enough to say things like.
"Vivek is obviously a superstar of some kind and he speaks some truths which need to be said."
Even in jest!
I think Johnny is just Momentum’s first attempt at a bot. Forgot to turn it off when they all went home."Now now Rog we all know Momentum’s first Bot was Liz Truss. They played a long game by seemingly getting her groomed by Tufton St only to unleash her full fuck up once she secured the top job screwing the Tories. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"sadly, there isn't anyone. The man offends people, but got the job done better than anyone else. If he offends you, your already gone or irrelevant, so just enjoy the economy, the border stance and energy independence and STFU. I am going to say something that is probably going to surprise people 1) I think Niki Haley could beat Biden in a general election matchup… but trump and desantis will get crushed 2) I don’t think Biden would have run for a second term if trump had not of run……. Haha “Trump and DeSantis will get crushed”! What, if Biden can stay awake long enough. You are watching too much CNN. It’s forever the CNN shot… are you that much of a one trick pony! Do you ever watch any of the town halls or republican primary debates? The general rule of thumb in that in the primaries you run to the left/right and in the general you tack back towards the centre… Haley can absolutely do that… trump and desantis are too far to the right to do that! Just got thru the Haley and desantis town halls last night… and for the first time I was impressed by both of them, and it’s the first time they have both gone after trump rather than give him deference!! The last GOP debate next week where it will just be Haley and desantis on the stage ( because trump will skip.. which I think is a bad idea!) will be fascinating to see if they will turn on each other.. or carve up trump! Trump is doing the right thing by not turning up. He is just letting the children play. He is the adult who has more important things to be doing. He will win the nomination anyway by a mile so the debates are just a sideshow. To be honest I think DeSantis and Haley are both okay, though there is a lot of animosity towards Haley in Republican circles. Vivek is obviously a superstar of some kind and he speaks some truths which need to be said. Having a load of politicians standing around saying the same thing all the time is pointless. I agree that Haley and DeSantis will more likely beat Biden than Trump, but Trump is in with a fair chance I would say. Biden’s ability to preform in an election campaign is an unknown factor and must be making the Democrats extremely nervous. He won’t be able to rely on the media silencing Trump this time around, and Hunter’s dirty laundry is there for all to see. The electorate aren’t swallowing the whole Bidenomics thing, they know perfectly well whether they are better off or not under Biden. I reckon you're Johnny's alter ego.
Lol
I don't know if I could be brazen enough to say things like.
"Vivek is obviously a superstar of some kind and he speaks some truths which need to be said."
Even in jest!
I think Johnny is just Momentum’s first attempt at a bot. Forgot to turn it off when they all went home.
Now now Rog we all know Momentum’s first Bot was Liz Truss. They played a long game by seemingly getting her groomed by Tufton St only to unleash her full fuck up once she secured the top job screwing the Tories."They didn't do a very good job seeing as she supposedly screwed the poor more | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"sadly, there isn't anyone. The man offends people, but got the job done better than anyone else. If he offends you, your already gone or irrelevant, so just enjoy the economy, the border stance and energy independence and STFU. I am going to say something that is probably going to surprise people 1) I think Niki Haley could beat Biden in a general election matchup… but trump and desantis will get crushed 2) I don’t think Biden would have run for a second term if trump had not of run……. Haha “Trump and DeSantis will get crushed”! What, if Biden can stay awake long enough. You are watching too much CNN. It’s forever the CNN shot… are you that much of a one trick pony! Do you ever watch any of the town halls or republican primary debates? The general rule of thumb in that in the primaries you run to the left/right and in the general you tack back towards the centre… Haley can absolutely do that… trump and desantis are too far to the right to do that! Just got thru the Haley and desantis town halls last night… and for the first time I was impressed by both of them, and it’s the first time they have both gone after trump rather than give him deference!! The last GOP debate next week where it will just be Haley and desantis on the stage ( because trump will skip.. which I think is a bad idea!) will be fascinating to see if they will turn on each other.. or carve up trump! Trump is doing the right thing by not turning up. He is just letting the children play. He is the adult who has more important things to be doing. He will win the nomination anyway by a mile so the debates are just a sideshow. To be honest I think DeSantis and Haley are both okay, though there is a lot of animosity towards Haley in Republican circles. Vivek is obviously a superstar of some kind and he speaks some truths which need to be said. Having a load of politicians standing around saying the same thing all the time is pointless. I agree that Haley and DeSantis will more likely beat Biden than Trump, but Trump is in with a fair chance I would say. Biden’s ability to preform in an election campaign is an unknown factor and must be making the Democrats extremely nervous. He won’t be able to rely on the media silencing Trump this time around, and Hunter’s dirty laundry is there for all to see. The electorate aren’t swallowing the whole Bidenomics thing, they know perfectly well whether they are better off or not under Biden. I reckon you're Johnny's alter ego.
Lol
I don't know if I could be brazen enough to say things like.
"Vivek is obviously a superstar of some kind and he speaks some truths which need to be said."
Even in jest!
I think Johnny is just Momentum’s first attempt at a bot. Forgot to turn it off when they all went home.
Now now Rog we all know Momentum’s first Bot was Liz Truss. They played a long game by seemingly getting her groomed by Tufton St only to unleash her full fuck up once she secured the top job screwing the Tories.
They didn't do a very good job seeing as she supposedly screwed the poor more "She was a shit bot admittedly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"sadly, there isn't anyone. The man offends people, but got the job done better than anyone else. If he offends you, your already gone or irrelevant, so just enjoy the economy, the border stance and energy independence and STFU. I am going to say something that is probably going to surprise people 1) I think Niki Haley could beat Biden in a general election matchup… but trump and desantis will get crushed 2) I don’t think Biden would have run for a second term if trump had not of run……. Haha “Trump and DeSantis will get crushed”! What, if Biden can stay awake long enough. You are watching too much CNN. It’s forever the CNN shot… are you that much of a one trick pony! Do you ever watch any of the town halls or republican primary debates? The general rule of thumb in that in the primaries you run to the left/right and in the general you tack back towards the centre… Haley can absolutely do that… trump and desantis are too far to the right to do that! Just got thru the Haley and desantis town halls last night… and for the first time I was impressed by both of them, and it’s the first time they have both gone after trump rather than give him deference!! The last GOP debate next week where it will just be Haley and desantis on the stage ( because trump will skip.. which I think is a bad idea!) will be fascinating to see if they will turn on each other.. or carve up trump! Trump is doing the right thing by not turning up. He is just letting the children play. He is the adult who has more important things to be doing. He will win the nomination anyway by a mile so the debates are just a sideshow. To be honest I think DeSantis and Haley are both okay, though there is a lot of animosity towards Haley in Republican circles. Vivek is obviously a superstar of some kind and he speaks some truths which need to be said. Having a load of politicians standing around saying the same thing all the time is pointless. I agree that Haley and DeSantis will more likely beat Biden than Trump, but Trump is in with a fair chance I would say. Biden’s ability to preform in an election campaign is an unknown factor and must be making the Democrats extremely nervous. He won’t be able to rely on the media silencing Trump this time around, and Hunter’s dirty laundry is there for all to see. The electorate aren’t swallowing the whole Bidenomics thing, they know perfectly well whether they are better off or not under Biden. I reckon you're Johnny's alter ego.
Lol
I don't know if I could be brazen enough to say things like.
"Vivek is obviously a superstar of some kind and he speaks some truths which need to be said."
Even in jest!
I think Johnny is just Momentum’s first attempt at a bot. Forgot to turn it off when they all went home.
Now now Rog we all know Momentum’s first Bot was Liz Truss. They played a long game by seemingly getting her groomed by Tufton St only to unleash her full fuck up once she secured the top job screwing the Tories.
They didn't do a very good job seeing as she supposedly screwed the poor more
She was a shit bot admittedly. "Just add it to the list of momentum failures | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"sadly, there isn't anyone. The man offends people, but got the job done better than anyone else. If he offends you, your already gone or irrelevant, so just enjoy the economy, the border stance and energy independence and STFU. I am going to say something that is probably going to surprise people 1) I think Niki Haley could beat Biden in a general election matchup… but trump and desantis will get crushed 2) I don’t think Biden would have run for a second term if trump had not of run……. Haha “Trump and DeSantis will get crushed”! What, if Biden can stay awake long enough. You are watching too much CNN. It’s forever the CNN shot… are you that much of a one trick pony! Do you ever watch any of the town halls or republican primary debates? The general rule of thumb in that in the primaries you run to the left/right and in the general you tack back towards the centre… Haley can absolutely do that… trump and desantis are too far to the right to do that! Just got thru the Haley and desantis town halls last night… and for the first time I was impressed by both of them, and it’s the first time they have both gone after trump rather than give him deference!! The last GOP debate next week where it will just be Haley and desantis on the stage ( because trump will skip.. which I think is a bad idea!) will be fascinating to see if they will turn on each other.. or carve up trump! Trump is doing the right thing by not turning up. He is just letting the children play. He is the adult who has more important things to be doing. He will win the nomination anyway by a mile so the debates are just a sideshow. To be honest I think DeSantis and Haley are both okay, though there is a lot of animosity towards Haley in Republican circles. Vivek is obviously a superstar of some kind and he speaks some truths which need to be said. Having a load of politicians standing around saying the same thing all the time is pointless. I agree that Haley and DeSantis will more likely beat Biden than Trump, but Trump is in with a fair chance I would say. Biden’s ability to preform in an election campaign is an unknown factor and must be making the Democrats extremely nervous. He won’t be able to rely on the media silencing Trump this time around, and Hunter’s dirty laundry is there for all to see. The electorate aren’t swallowing the whole Bidenomics thing, they know perfectly well whether they are better off or not under Biden. I reckon you're Johnny's alter ego.
Lol
I don't know if I could be brazen enough to say things like.
"Vivek is obviously a superstar of some kind and he speaks some truths which need to be said."
Even in jest!
I think Johnny is just Momentum’s first attempt at a bot. Forgot to turn it off when they all went home.
Now now Rog we all know Momentum’s first Bot was Liz Truss. They played a long game by seemingly getting her groomed by Tufton St only to unleash her full fuck up once she secured the top job screwing the Tories.
They didn't do a very good job seeing as she supposedly screwed the poor more
She was a shit bot admittedly.
Just add it to the list of momentum failures "No argument there. Although the sneaky bastards have a few more sleepers up their sleeve yet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"sadly, there isn't anyone. The man offends people, but got the job done better than anyone else. If he offends you, your already gone or irrelevant, so just enjoy the economy, the border stance and energy independence and STFU. I am going to say something that is probably going to surprise people 1) I think Niki Haley could beat Biden in a general election matchup… but trump and desantis will get crushed 2) I don’t think Biden would have run for a second term if trump had not of run……. Haha “Trump and DeSantis will get crushed”! What, if Biden can stay awake long enough. You are watching too much CNN. It’s forever the CNN shot… are you that much of a one trick pony! Do you ever watch any of the town halls or republican primary debates? The general rule of thumb in that in the primaries you run to the left/right and in the general you tack back towards the centre… Haley can absolutely do that… trump and desantis are too far to the right to do that! Just got thru the Haley and desantis town halls last night… and for the first time I was impressed by both of them, and it’s the first time they have both gone after trump rather than give him deference!! The last GOP debate next week where it will just be Haley and desantis on the stage ( because trump will skip.. which I think is a bad idea!) will be fascinating to see if they will turn on each other.. or carve up trump! Trump is doing the right thing by not turning up. He is just letting the children play. He is the adult who has more important things to be doing. He will win the nomination anyway by a mile so the debates are just a sideshow. To be honest I think DeSantis and Haley are both okay, though there is a lot of animosity towards Haley in Republican circles. Vivek is obviously a superstar of some kind and he speaks some truths which need to be said. Having a load of politicians standing around saying the same thing all the time is pointless. I agree that Haley and DeSantis will more likely beat Biden than Trump, but Trump is in with a fair chance I would say. Biden’s ability to preform in an election campaign is an unknown factor and must be making the Democrats extremely nervous. He won’t be able to rely on the media silencing Trump this time around, and Hunter’s dirty laundry is there for all to see. The electorate aren’t swallowing the whole Bidenomics thing, they know perfectly well whether they are better off or not under Biden. I reckon you're Johnny's alter ego.
Lol
I don't know if I could be brazen enough to say things like.
"Vivek is obviously a superstar of some kind and he speaks some truths which need to be said."
Even in jest!
I think Johnny is just Momentum’s first attempt at a bot. Forgot to turn it off when they all went home.
Now now Rog we all know Momentum’s first Bot was Liz Truss. They played a long game by seemingly getting her groomed by Tufton St only to unleash her full fuck up once she secured the top job screwing the Tories.
They didn't do a very good job seeing as she supposedly screwed the poor more
She was a shit bot admittedly.
Just add it to the list of momentum failures
No argument there. Although the sneaky bastards have a few more sleepers up their sleeve yet."And some that are a bit more overt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump will lose as he has in every election post 2016. Why the Republican party are running with a serial bankrupt draft dodging ,liar is really difficult to work out. " Might not win with him but absolutely doomed without him. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump will lose as he has in every election post 2016. Why the Republican party are running with a serial bankrupt draft dodging ,liar is really difficult to work out. Might not win with him but absolutely doomed without him. " Would they not stand more of a chance with a proper grown up at the helm? Surely someone decent would trounce Biden, he can barely function at this stage. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump will lose as he has in every election post 2016. Why the Republican party are running with a serial bankrupt draft dodging ,liar is really difficult to work out. Might not win with him but absolutely doomed without him. Would they not stand more of a chance with a proper grown up at the helm? Surely someone decent would trounce Biden, he can barely function at this stage. " Like I said.. I truly believe if trump doesn’t run then neither does Biden… The 28 democratic field may be really interesting… Harris, buttigeg, gavin newsome, Gretchen whittimer | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump will lose as he has in every election post 2016. Why the Republican party are running with a serial bankrupt draft dodging ,liar is really difficult to work out. Might not win with him but absolutely doomed without him. Would they not stand more of a chance with a proper grown up at the helm? Surely someone decent would trounce Biden, he can barely function at this stage. Like I said.. I truly believe if trump doesn’t run then neither does Biden… The 28 democratic field may be really interesting… Harris, buttigeg, gavin newsome, Gretchen whittimer " Having neither of them in the running sounds like a big positive for the country. Although, everytime we thought "can't get any worse than this". Yikes. We thought Bush, would could barely read was the low water mark. Trump smashed through the bottom of that barrel. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like him or loath him , a quick look at what has happened across the world since he left the white house shows he held massive sway ,and was influensive in keeping the peace . Under Sleepy Joe's leadership Russia invaded Ukraine. Hamas committed Terrorist attacks in Israel. USA and Europen borders breached by mass invasions of asylum seekers. Iran and North Korea supplying Russia with weapons . None of this happened under Trumps presidency " I don't think you can suggest that Trump being in power would have prevented Russia or Hamas carrying out their plans and the migrant situation has got worse through many factors but was always there, hence the Trump's wall. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like him or loath him , a quick look at what has happened across the world since he left the white house shows he held massive sway ,and was influensive in keeping the peace . Under Sleepy Joe's leadership Russia invaded Ukraine. Hamas committed Terrorist attacks in Israel. USA and Europen borders breached by mass invasions of asylum seekers. Iran and North Korea supplying Russia with weapons . None of this happened under Trumps presidency " Also none of these things happened before I bought my air fryer. Maybe Google the difference between correlation and causality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump’s biggest problem was that he didn’t start any wars. Any President who isn’t supporting big business (particularly military) and media interests can expect the onslaught that we have seen against Trump. Biden has returned to normality with his forever wars and the vast scale of his asset inflating money printing. About a third of the Republican Party and all of the Democrats are entirely beholden to globalist and corporate interests. The MAGA Republicans have become the party of the rural working class, just as the Conservatives have in Britain. And like the British Labour Party the Democrats are just the party of the urban graduate liberal elite. It’s odd that this same shift in party loyalty has been replicated across the West." We need to be grateful that Trump didn't start any wars or get involved in any. Can you imagine the consequences of letting a petulant, irrational, narcissistic, 5 year old equivalent being in charge of the big red button? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump’s biggest problem was that he didn’t start any wars. Any President who isn’t supporting big business (particularly military) and media interests can expect the onslaught that we have seen against Trump. Biden has returned to normality with his forever wars and the vast scale of his asset inflating money printing. About a third of the Republican Party and all of the Democrats are entirely beholden to globalist and corporate interests. The MAGA Republicans have become the party of the rural working class, just as the Conservatives have in Britain. And like the British Labour Party the Democrats are just the party of the urban graduate liberal elite. It’s odd that this same shift in party loyalty has been replicated across the West. We need to be grateful that Trump didn't start any wars or get involved in any. Can you imagine the consequences of letting a petulant, irrational, narcissistic, 5 year old equivalent being in charge of the big red button?" he was in charge of the big red button for four years, it does make me laugh listening to the likes of big mike and her husband banging on about how dangerous a trump presidency would be, you would of thought he would of done everything there saying he will do the last time he was president,but lets face it republican democrat tory or labour they do what there owners want first and the general public get some crumbs that there supporter see as they care about us lol truth is they look at there populations like there something they have trod in | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I cant wait for Trump to be back in power. Weak leader lead to tough times. Tough leader leads to good times and peace!! " What about an incompetent, insecure, narcissistic leader, chaos and instability? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only man to lose wealth while serving, didn't take a paycheck." You know he didn't start giving his salary away until year 3? He also made more money for his hotels by using taxpayer money to hold events, meetings and summits in his own properties. If it's not against the rules, fine. But don't paint a picture of a saint when he's just another self serving businessman. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"sadly, there isn't anyone. The man offends people, but got the job done better than anyone else. If he offends you, your already gone or irrelevant, so just enjoy the economy, the border stance and energy independence and STFU. I am going to say something that is probably going to surprise people 1) I think Niki Haley could beat Biden in a general election matchup… but trump and desantis will get crushed 2) I don’t think Biden would have run for a second term if trump had not of run……." Sounds about right | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"sadly, there isn't anyone. The man offends people, but got the job done better than anyone else. If he offends you, your already gone or irrelevant, so just enjoy the economy, the border stance and energy independence and STFU. I am going to say something that is probably going to surprise people 1) I think Niki Haley could beat Biden in a general election matchup… but trump and desantis will get crushed 2) I don’t think Biden would have run for a second term if trump had not of run……. Haha “Trump and DeSantis will get crushed”! What, if Biden can stay awake long enough. You are watching too much CNN." Or if trump can stop confusing states, wars and decades....... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I cant wait for Trump to be back in power. Weak leader lead to tough times. Tough leader leads to good times and peace!! What about an incompetent, insecure, narcissistic leader, chaos and instability?" Thank goodness that Biden, Cameron and the rest of the adults are back in charge. The world has never looked safer! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like him or loath him , a quick look at what has happened across the world since he left the white house shows he held massive sway ,and was influensive in keeping the peace . Under Sleepy Joe's leadership Russia invaded Ukraine. Hamas committed Terrorist attacks in Israel. USA and Europen borders breached by mass invasions of asylum seekers. Iran and North Korea supplying Russia with weapons . None of this happened under Trumps presidency " You think it's possible all these things were planned and mobilised that quickly after trump left? I think it's likely that the state America and Europe are in because of trump and Brexit have been a red rag to a lot of extreme political influences. If we can't work things out like adults in peacetime, what sort of deterrent are we to the threat of war..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like him or loath him , a quick look at what has happened across the world since he left the white house shows he held massive sway ,and was influensive in keeping the peace . Under Sleepy Joe's leadership Russia invaded Ukraine. Hamas committed Terrorist attacks in Israel. USA and Europen borders breached by mass invasions of asylum seekers. Iran and North Korea supplying Russia with weapons . None of this happened under Trumps presidency You think it's possible all these things were planned and mobilised that quickly after trump left? I think it's likely that the state America and Europe are in because of trump and Brexit have been a red rag to a lot of extreme political influences. If we can't work things out like adults in peacetime, what sort of deterrent are we to the threat of war....." What state have Europe and the US been in because of Trump and Brexit exactly? I thought the US is doing fantastically well under Bidenomics. And the only losers from Brexit (apparently) have been the UK - I can’t really see how that stops the highly successful and well run EU from providing a deterrent to Putin et al without Puny Britain being on the scene. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like him or loath him , a quick look at what has happened across the world since he left the white house shows he held massive sway ,and was influensive in keeping the peace . Under Sleepy Joe's leadership Russia invaded Ukraine. Hamas committed Terrorist attacks in Israel. USA and Europen borders breached by mass invasions of asylum seekers. Iran and North Korea supplying Russia with weapons . None of this happened under Trumps presidency You think it's possible all these things were planned and mobilised that quickly after trump left? I think it's likely that the state America and Europe are in because of trump and Brexit have been a red rag to a lot of extreme political influences. If we can't work things out like adults in peacetime, what sort of deterrent are we to the threat of war..... What state have Europe and the US been in because of Trump and Brexit exactly? I thought the US is doing fantastically well under Bidenomics. And the only losers from Brexit (apparently) have been the UK - I can’t really see how that stops the highly successful and well run EU from providing a deterrent to Putin et al without Puny Britain being on the scene." The original idea of the EU as a bloc was to prevent another large scale European conflict. If the member states can't agree and act in concert, how will they stand together in the event of a war. Which is all that's happened now. Europe (Inc UK) has been very dependent on Russian gas and couldn't stop that flow of money without falling apart. The UK was, bafflingly, a big part of the EU construct. The UK leaving shows other countries they don't have to work together if they don't want to. Regarding the US, it's been further separated from Europe and Trump made it clear he wanted less collaboration and trade with other countries. He moved away from NATO and cast doubt on world orgs like WHO. He openly said that if there was a war in Europe, USA would not get involved again. He praises and encourages autocratic leaders and their decisions, lauding terrorists actions as strong and clever. If those things aren't encouraging to those who threaten peace, I'm not sure what would be. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like him or loath him , a quick look at what has happened across the world since he left the white house shows he held massive sway ,and was influensive in keeping the peace . Under Sleepy Joe's leadership Russia invaded Ukraine. Hamas committed Terrorist attacks in Israel. USA and Europen borders breached by mass invasions of asylum seekers. Iran and North Korea supplying Russia with weapons . None of this happened under Trumps presidency You think it's possible all these things were planned and mobilised that quickly after trump left? I think it's likely that the state America and Europe are in because of trump and Brexit have been a red rag to a lot of extreme political influences. If we can't work things out like adults in peacetime, what sort of deterrent are we to the threat of war..... What state have Europe and the US been in because of Trump and Brexit exactly? I thought the US is doing fantastically well under Bidenomics. And the only losers from Brexit (apparently) have been the UK - I can’t really see how that stops the highly successful and well run EU from providing a deterrent to Putin et al without Puny Britain being on the scene. The original idea of the EU as a bloc was to prevent another large scale European conflict. If the member states can't agree and act in concert, how will they stand together in the event of a war. Which is all that's happened now. Europe (Inc UK) has been very dependent on Russian gas and couldn't stop that flow of money without falling apart. The UK was, bafflingly, a big part of the EU construct. The UK leaving shows other countries they don't have to work together if they don't want to. Regarding the US, it's been further separated from Europe and Trump made it clear he wanted less collaboration and trade with other countries. He moved away from NATO and cast doubt on world orgs like WHO. He openly said that if there was a war in Europe, USA would not get involved again. He praises and encourages autocratic leaders and their decisions, lauding terrorists actions as strong and clever. If those things aren't encouraging to those who threaten peace, I'm not sure what would be." So it’s got nothing to do with Brexit. It’s actually about the EU being totally divided (as we can see not only with Ukraine but now also with Yemen) and the EU being totally reliant on Russian gas because of the EU’s deranged energy policies. And as for it being Trump’s fault, you realise that he left office in 2020? What’s Biden being doing (yes we know he’s been having his afternoon nap)? Why stop at Trump? Have you thought of pinning it on Reagan or Truman? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Like him or loath him , a quick look at what has happened across the world since he left the white house shows he held massive sway ,and was influensive in keeping the peace . Under Sleepy Joe's leadership Russia invaded Ukraine. Hamas committed Terrorist attacks in Israel. USA and Europen borders breached by mass invasions of asylum seekers. Iran and North Korea supplying Russia with weapons . None of this happened under Trumps presidency You think it's possible all these things were planned and mobilised that quickly after trump left? I think it's likely that the state America and Europe are in because of trump and Brexit have been a red rag to a lot of extreme political influences. If we can't work things out like adults in peacetime, what sort of deterrent are we to the threat of war..... What state have Europe and the US been in because of Trump and Brexit exactly? I thought the US is doing fantastically well under Bidenomics. And the only losers from Brexit (apparently) have been the UK - I can’t really see how that stops the highly successful and well run EU from providing a deterrent to Putin et al without Puny Britain being on the scene. The original idea of the EU as a bloc was to prevent another large scale European conflict. If the member states can't agree and act in concert, how will they stand together in the event of a war. Which is all that's happened now. Europe (Inc UK) has been very dependent on Russian gas and couldn't stop that flow of money without falling apart. The UK was, bafflingly, a big part of the EU construct. The UK leaving shows other countries they don't have to work together if they don't want to. Regarding the US, it's been further separated from Europe and Trump made it clear he wanted less collaboration and trade with other countries. He moved away from NATO and cast doubt on world orgs like WHO. He openly said that if there was a war in Europe, USA would not get involved again. He praises and encourages autocratic leaders and their decisions, lauding terrorists actions as strong and clever. If those things aren't encouraging to those who threaten peace, I'm not sure what would be. So it’s got nothing to do with Brexit. It’s actually about the EU being totally divided (as we can see not only with Ukraine but now also with Yemen) and the EU being totally reliant on Russian gas because of the EU’s deranged energy policies. And as for it being Trump’s fault, you realise that he left office in 2020? What’s Biden being doing (yes we know he’s been having his afternoon nap)? Why stop at Trump? Have you thought of pinning it on Reagan or Truman?" Things of this scale aren't wholly dependent on 1 person, or incident. Which I suspect you already know. Trump made these things easier. Brexit made these things easier. If Biden was different, things may be better or worse. If Clinton had got in, maybe things would have been better or worse. If the UK hadn't left the EU, it may have been better or worse. All I can say personally, is that the things that happened made things worse than they were before they happened. Who knows, maybe the world would be a far worse place if those 2 things didn't happen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Only man to lose wealth while serving, didn't take a paycheck." His companies (e.g. him) got 10s of millions from Tax cuts he introduced that were funded by 3 trillion dollar national debt. Public servants were being instructed to use Trump facilities on official business and foreign and domestic businesses seeking favour booked meetings in Trump facilities; he did not lose out. In addition, his 2020 Tax returns do not show any charitable contributions, so where did his $400,000 salary go? Never mind, cult members will treat those facts as media lies and spin and will continue to blindly bend a knee to their new messiah. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump is “dog whistling” again… this time reposting stuff on social media claiming that Nikki Haley isn’t eligible to run for president because her parents were not us citizens at the time she was born! Also in posts referring to her as Nikki “Nimrata” Haley after her Iowa speech….. Shades of his birtherism past against president Obama…." Next he’ll be claiming that Obama is gay and that Michelle is really “Michael”. The state of it all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump is “dog whistling” again… this time reposting stuff on social media claiming that Nikki Haley isn’t eligible to run for president because her parents were not us citizens at the time she was born! Also in posts referring to her as Nikki “Nimrata” Haley after her Iowa speech….. Shades of his birtherism past against president Obama…. Next he’ll be claiming that Obama is gay and that Michelle is really “Michael”. The state of it all." Probably not far from the truth. He couldn't tell that Biden wasn't Obama. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump is “dog whistling” again… this time reposting stuff on social media claiming that Nikki Haley isn’t eligible to run for president because her parents were not us citizens at the time she was born! Also in posts referring to her as Nikki “Nimrata” Haley after her Iowa speech….. Shades of his birtherism past against president Obama…." He didn't need to be posting stuff like that. He is nailed to be the Republican candidate anyway. Then Sleepy Joe can be booted out ,and the real president returned to his rightful place in the white House. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump is “dog whistling” again… this time reposting stuff on social media claiming that Nikki Haley isn’t eligible to run for president because her parents were not us citizens at the time she was born! Also in posts referring to her as Nikki “Nimrata” Haley after her Iowa speech….. Shades of his birtherism past against president Obama…. He didn't need to be posting stuff like that. He is nailed to be the Republican candidate anyway. Then Sleepy Joe can be booted out ,and the real president returned to his rightful place in the white House. " Biden should retire but I have to ask you...even if you completely agree with Trump’s policies, doesn’t his personal attributes and history bother you in the slightest? Is the man who declared “grab them by the pussy” and such really the type of person you want to hold the most powerful job on the planet? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump is “dog whistling” again… this time reposting stuff on social media claiming that Nikki Haley isn’t eligible to run for president because her parents were not us citizens at the time she was born! Also in posts referring to her as Nikki “Nimrata” Haley after her Iowa speech….. Shades of his birtherism past against president Obama…. He didn't need to be posting stuff like that. He is nailed to be the Republican candidate anyway. Then Sleepy Joe can be booted out ,and the real president returned to his rightful place in the white House. " “Real” president??? How do you figure that?….. this should be good! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. " I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate)." You are right… minimum 25 years old to be a congressman, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president Every talks about Biden being too old.. but trump is only 2 years younger….. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate). You are right… minimum 25 years old to be a congressman, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president Every talks about Biden being too old.. but trump is only 2 years younger….." Indeed but Trump feels strong, very strong, the strongest, and he knows because he can see what strong is and he knows he is really strong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate). You are right… minimum 25 years old to be a congressman, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president Every talks about Biden being too old.. but trump is only 2 years younger….. Indeed but Trump feels strong, very strong, the strongest, and he knows because he can see what strong is and he knows he is really strong." The world NEEDS the real president back in charge ,and The Don WILL be back in his rightful place this year . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate). You are right… minimum 25 years old to be a congressman, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president Every talks about Biden being too old.. but trump is only 2 years younger….. Indeed but Trump feels strong, very strong, the strongest, and he knows because he can see what strong is and he knows he is really strong. The world NEEDS the real president back in charge ,and The Don WILL be back in his rightful place this year . " Again… what do you mean the “real” president? You know he lost in 2020 right! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate). You are right… minimum 25 years old to be a congressman, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president Every talks about Biden being too old.. but trump is only 2 years younger….. Indeed but Trump feels strong, very strong, the strongest, and he knows because he can see what strong is and he knows he is really strong. The world NEEDS the real president back in charge ,and The Don WILL be back in his rightful place this year . " Terrifying prospect for the planet, but I fear you could be right. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate). You are right… minimum 25 years old to be a congressman, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president Every talks about Biden being too old.. but trump is only 2 years younger….. Indeed but Trump feels strong, very strong, the strongest, and he knows because he can see what strong is and he knows he is really strong. The world NEEDS the real president back in charge ,and The Don WILL be back in his rightful place this year . " I reckon you are pulling our legs but I will ask this again as you ignored/missed it... ...even if you completely agree with Trump’s policies, doesn’t his personal attributes and history bother you in the slightest? Is the man who declared “grab them by the pussy” and such really the type of person you want to hold the most powerful job on the planet? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate). You are right… minimum 25 years old to be a congressman, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president Every talks about Biden being too old.. but trump is only 2 years younger….. Indeed but Trump feels strong, very strong, the strongest, and he knows because he can see what strong is and he knows he is really strong. The world NEEDS the real president back in charge ,and The Don WILL be back in his rightful place this year . I reckon you are pulling our legs but I will ask this again as you ignored/missed it... ...even if you completely agree with Trump’s policies, doesn’t his personal attributes and history bother you in the slightest? Is the man who declared “grab them by the pussy” and such really the type of person you want to hold the most powerful job on the planet?" . Surely we should be ignoring what any politician says in private regardless of what party they belong to. The important thing is what a politicians policies are and the impact on the economy . The electorate passeed judgement on him in 2016 and 2020. I do not see many people complaining about the performance of the USA between 2016 and 2020. Let's hope they elect a politician who will make America great again. It is one of the greatest countries in the world . The performance of their technology companies is incredible as are organisations such as the Deere Corporation | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate). You are right… minimum 25 years old to be a congressman, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president Every talks about Biden being too old.. but trump is only 2 years younger….. Indeed but Trump feels strong, very strong, the strongest, and he knows because he can see what strong is and he knows he is really strong." Oh come on you 2….
You are sweeping Biden’s obvious losses of memory and health under the carpet, by saying Trump is only 2 years younger.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate). You are right… minimum 25 years old to be a congressman, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president Every talks about Biden being too old.. but trump is only 2 years younger….. Indeed but Trump feels strong, very strong, the strongest, and he knows because he can see what strong is and he knows he is really strong. Oh come on you 2….
You are sweeping Biden’s obvious losses of memory and health under the carpet, by saying Trump is only 2 years younger.
"Hobson’s choice! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate). You are right… minimum 25 years old to be a congressman, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president Every talks about Biden being too old.. but trump is only 2 years younger….. Indeed but Trump feels strong, very strong, the strongest, and he knows because he can see what strong is and he knows he is really strong. The world NEEDS the real president back in charge ,and The Don WILL be back in his rightful place this year . I reckon you are pulling our legs but I will ask this again as you ignored/missed it... ...even if you completely agree with Trump’s policies, doesn’t his personal attributes and history bother you in the slightest? Is the man who declared “grab them by the pussy” and such really the type of person you want to hold the most powerful job on the planet?. Surely we should be ignoring what any politician says in private regardless of what party they belong to. The important thing is what a politicians policies are and the impact on the economy . The electorate passeed judgement on him in 2016 and 2020. I do not see many people complaining about the performance of the USA between 2016 and 2020. Let's hope they elect a politician who will make America great again. It is one of the greatest countries in the world . The performance of their technology companies is incredible as are organisations such as the Deere Corporation " Loving the tractor reference Pat. Nice shout out to one of your previous alter egos! 
But no we should not be ignoring what politicians say in private. If they don’t like it, don’t become a politician and be held to higher standards! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate). You are right… minimum 25 years old to be a congressman, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president Every talks about Biden being too old.. but trump is only 2 years younger….. Indeed but Trump feels strong, very strong, the strongest, and he knows because he can see what strong is and he knows he is really strong. Oh come on you 2….
You are sweeping Biden’s obvious losses of memory and health under the carpet, by saying Trump is only 2 years younger.
"Have you seen some of trump latest speeches… I would say he is no better mentally than Biden | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate). You are right… minimum 25 years old to be a congressman, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president Every talks about Biden being too old.. but trump is only 2 years younger….. Indeed but Trump feels strong, very strong, the strongest, and he knows because he can see what strong is and he knows he is really strong. The world NEEDS the real president back in charge ,and The Don WILL be back in his rightful place this year . I reckon you are pulling our legs but I will ask this again as you ignored/missed it... ...even if you completely agree with Trump’s policies, doesn’t his personal attributes and history bother you in the slightest? Is the man who declared “grab them by the pussy” and such really the type of person you want to hold the most powerful job on the planet?. Surely we should be ignoring what any politician says in private regardless of what party they belong to. The important thing is what a politicians policies are and the impact on the economy . The electorate passeed judgement on him in 2016 and 2020. I do not see many people complaining about the performance of the USA between 2016 and 2020. Let's hope they elect a politician who will make America great again. It is one of the greatest countries in the world . The performance of their technology companies is incredible as are organisations such as the Deere Corporation Loving the tractor reference Pat. Nice shout out to one of your previous alter egos!
But no we should not be ignoring what politicians say in private. If they don’t like it, don’t become a politician and be held to higher standards!"why should they be held to higher standards than everyone else? There not any different to anyone else in the world, unless of course you think politicians are more special than the general public, i wouldnt police what you or anyone else wants to say so why shouldnt politicians be able to say what they want? As long as they not breaking any laws by what there saying then what's the problem | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate). You are right… minimum 25 years old to be a congressman, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president Every talks about Biden being too old.. but trump is only 2 years younger….. Indeed but Trump feels strong, very strong, the strongest, and he knows because he can see what strong is and he knows he is really strong. The world NEEDS the real president back in charge ,and The Don WILL be back in his rightful place this year . I reckon you are pulling our legs but I will ask this again as you ignored/missed it... ...even if you completely agree with Trump’s policies, doesn’t his personal attributes and history bother you in the slightest? Is the man who declared “grab them by the pussy” and such really the type of person you want to hold the most powerful job on the planet?. Surely we should be ignoring what any politician says in private regardless of what party they belong to. The important thing is what a politicians policies are and the impact on the economy . The electorate passeed judgement on him in 2016 and 2020. I do not see many people complaining about the performance of the USA between 2016 and 2020. Let's hope they elect a politician who will make America great again. It is one of the greatest countries in the world . The performance of their technology companies is incredible as are organisations such as the Deere Corporation Loving the tractor reference Pat. Nice shout out to one of your previous alter egos!
But no we should not be ignoring what politicians say in private. If they don’t like it, don’t become a politician and be held to higher standards!why should they be held to higher standards than everyone else? There not any different to anyone else in the world, unless of course you think politicians are more special than the general public, i wouldnt police what you or anyone else wants to say so why shouldnt politicians be able to say what they want? As long as they not breaking any laws by what there saying then what's the problem"If someone holds public office and is supposedly there to serve the will of the people, then in my opinion they should expect to be held to a higher standard. Nobody forces anyone to become a politician. It is their choice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate). You are right… minimum 25 years old to be a congressman, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president Every talks about Biden being too old.. but trump is only 2 years younger….. Indeed but Trump feels strong, very strong, the strongest, and he knows because he can see what strong is and he knows he is really strong. The world NEEDS the real president back in charge ,and The Don WILL be back in his rightful place this year . I reckon you are pulling our legs but I will ask this again as you ignored/missed it... ...even if you completely agree with Trump’s policies, doesn’t his personal attributes and history bother you in the slightest? Is the man who declared “grab them by the pussy” and such really the type of person you want to hold the most powerful job on the planet?. Surely we should be ignoring what any politician says in private regardless of what party they belong to. The important thing is what a politicians policies are and the impact on the economy . The electorate passeed judgement on him in 2016 and 2020. I do not see many people complaining about the performance of the USA between 2016 and 2020. Let's hope they elect a politician who will make America great again. It is one of the greatest countries in the world . The performance of their technology companies is incredible as are organisations such as the Deere Corporation Loving the tractor reference Pat. Nice shout out to one of your previous alter egos!
But no we should not be ignoring what politicians say in private. If they don’t like it, don’t become a politician and be held to higher standards!why should they be held to higher standards than everyone else? There not any different to anyone else in the world, unless of course you think politicians are more special than the general public, i wouldnt police what you or anyone else wants to say so why shouldnt politicians be able to say what they want? As long as they not breaking any laws by what there saying then what's the problem
If someone holds public office and is supposedly there to serve the will of the people, then in my opinion they should expect to be held to a higher standard. Nobody forces anyone to become a politician. It is their choice."so you think politicians are some how above the rest of us and shouldnt be able to say what they want? Id much rather someone said what they felt rather than say what they think i want to hear | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate). You are right… minimum 25 years old to be a congressman, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president Every talks about Biden being too old.. but trump is only 2 years younger….. Indeed but Trump feels strong, very strong, the strongest, and he knows because he can see what strong is and he knows he is really strong. The world NEEDS the real president back in charge ,and The Don WILL be back in his rightful place this year . I reckon you are pulling our legs but I will ask this again as you ignored/missed it... ...even if you completely agree with Trump’s policies, doesn’t his personal attributes and history bother you in the slightest? Is the man who declared “grab them by the pussy” and such really the type of person you want to hold the most powerful job on the planet?. Surely we should be ignoring what any politician says in private regardless of what party they belong to. The important thing is what a politicians policies are and the impact on the economy . The electorate passeed judgement on him in 2016 and 2020. I do not see many people complaining about the performance of the USA between 2016 and 2020. Let's hope they elect a politician who will make America great again. It is one of the greatest countries in the world . The performance of their technology companies is incredible as are organisations such as the Deere Corporation Loving the tractor reference Pat. Nice shout out to one of your previous alter egos!
But no we should not be ignoring what politicians say in private. If they don’t like it, don’t become a politician and be held to higher standards!why should they be held to higher standards than everyone else? There not any different to anyone else in the world, unless of course you think politicians are more special than the general public, i wouldnt police what you or anyone else wants to say so why shouldnt politicians be able to say what they want? As long as they not breaking any laws by what there saying then what's the problem
If someone holds public office and is supposedly there to serve the will of the people, then in my opinion they should expect to be held to a higher standard. Nobody forces anyone to become a politician. It is their choice.so you think politicians are some how above the rest of us and shouldnt be able to say what they want? Id much rather someone said what they felt rather than say what they think i want to hear"I think politicians should not be criminals, self serving, lying, corrupt, racist, misogynists, call me old fashioned but there we are! I’d rather they led by example! If people in high office act like cunts then the idiots who look up to them will assume it is ok to act like cunts as well! It isn’t ok! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate). You are right… minimum 25 years old to be a congressman, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president Every talks about Biden being too old.. but trump is only 2 years younger….. Indeed but Trump feels strong, very strong, the strongest, and he knows because he can see what strong is and he knows he is really strong. The world NEEDS the real president back in charge ,and The Don WILL be back in his rightful place this year . I reckon you are pulling our legs but I will ask this again as you ignored/missed it... ...even if you completely agree with Trump’s policies, doesn’t his personal attributes and history bother you in the slightest? Is the man who declared “grab them by the pussy” and such really the type of person you want to hold the most powerful job on the planet?. Surely we should be ignoring what any politician says in private regardless of what party they belong to. The important thing is what a politicians policies are and the impact on the economy . The electorate passeed judgement on him in 2016 and 2020. I do not see many people complaining about the performance of the USA between 2016 and 2020. Let's hope they elect a politician who will make America great again. It is one of the greatest countries in the world . The performance of their technology companies is incredible as are organisations such as the Deere Corporation Loving the tractor reference Pat. Nice shout out to one of your previous alter egos!
But no we should not be ignoring what politicians say in private. If they don’t like it, don’t become a politician and be held to higher standards!why should they be held to higher standards than everyone else? There not any different to anyone else in the world, unless of course you think politicians are more special than the general public, i wouldnt police what you or anyone else wants to say so why shouldnt politicians be able to say what they want? As long as they not breaking any laws by what there saying then what's the problem
If someone holds public office and is supposedly there to serve the will of the people, then in my opinion they should expect to be held to a higher standard. Nobody forces anyone to become a politician. It is their choice.so you think politicians are some how above the rest of us and shouldnt be able to say what they want? Id much rather someone said what they felt rather than say what they think i want to hear"What about the content of their thoughts? That's important too, if they think "I want to get rich, I don't give a fuck about running the country" that's fine, but I'd prefer politicians who want to do their job. The job they're elected to do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate). You are right… minimum 25 years old to be a congressman, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president Every talks about Biden being too old.. but trump is only 2 years younger….. Indeed but Trump feels strong, very strong, the strongest, and he knows because he can see what strong is and he knows he is really strong. The world NEEDS the real president back in charge ,and The Don WILL be back in his rightful place this year . I reckon you are pulling our legs but I will ask this again as you ignored/missed it... ...even if you completely agree with Trump’s policies, doesn’t his personal attributes and history bother you in the slightest? Is the man who declared “grab them by the pussy” and such really the type of person you want to hold the most powerful job on the planet?. Surely we should be ignoring what any politician says in private regardless of what party they belong to. The important thing is what a politicians policies are and the impact on the economy . The electorate passeed judgement on him in 2016 and 2020. I do not see many people complaining about the performance of the USA between 2016 and 2020. Let's hope they elect a politician who will make America great again. It is one of the greatest countries in the world . The performance of their technology companies is incredible as are organisations such as the Deere Corporation Loving the tractor reference Pat. Nice shout out to one of your previous alter egos!
But no we should not be ignoring what politicians say in private. If they don’t like it, don’t become a politician and be held to higher standards!why should they be held to higher standards than everyone else? There not any different to anyone else in the world, unless of course you think politicians are more special than the general public, i wouldnt police what you or anyone else wants to say so why shouldnt politicians be able to say what they want? As long as they not breaking any laws by what there saying then what's the problem
If someone holds public office and is supposedly there to serve the will of the people, then in my opinion they should expect to be held to a higher standard. Nobody forces anyone to become a politician. It is their choice.so you think politicians are some how above the rest of us and shouldnt be able to say what they want? Id much rather someone said what they felt rather than say what they think i want to hear
What about the content of their thoughts? That's important too, if they think "I want to get rich, I don't give a fuck about running the country" that's fine, but I'd prefer politicians who want to do their job. The job they're elected to do."like i said isnt it better to hear there thoughts? At least you get to find out the real them? Or would you rather they spout bollox that they dont belive but they are saying what you want to hear, id rather deal with a cunt who says what he thinks than a cunt who says wat he thinks will win him brownie points | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate). You are right… minimum 25 years old to be a congressman, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president Every talks about Biden being too old.. but trump is only 2 years younger….. Indeed but Trump feels strong, very strong, the strongest, and he knows because he can see what strong is and he knows he is really strong. The world NEEDS the real president back in charge ,and The Don WILL be back in his rightful place this year . I reckon you are pulling our legs but I will ask this again as you ignored/missed it... ...even if you completely agree with Trump’s policies, doesn’t his personal attributes and history bother you in the slightest? Is the man who declared “grab them by the pussy” and such really the type of person you want to hold the most powerful job on the planet?. Surely we should be ignoring what any politician says in private regardless of what party they belong to. The important thing is what a politicians policies are and the impact on the economy . The electorate passeed judgement on him in 2016 and 2020. I do not see many people complaining about the performance of the USA between 2016 and 2020. Let's hope they elect a politician who will make America great again. It is one of the greatest countries in the world . The performance of their technology companies is incredible as are organisations such as the Deere Corporation Loving the tractor reference Pat. Nice shout out to one of your previous alter egos!
But no we should not be ignoring what politicians say in private. If they don’t like it, don’t become a politician and be held to higher standards!why should they be held to higher standards than everyone else? There not any different to anyone else in the world, unless of course you think politicians are more special than the general public, i wouldnt police what you or anyone else wants to say so why shouldnt politicians be able to say what they want? As long as they not breaking any laws by what there saying then what's the problem
If someone holds public office and is supposedly there to serve the will of the people, then in my opinion they should expect to be held to a higher standard. Nobody forces anyone to become a politician. It is their choice.so you think politicians are some how above the rest of us and shouldnt be able to say what they want? Id much rather someone said what they felt rather than say what they think i want to hear
I think politicians should not be criminals, self serving, lying, corrupt, racist, misogynists, call me old fashioned but there we are!
I’d rather they led by example!
If people in high office act like cunts then the idiots who look up to them will assume it is ok to act like cunts as well!
It isn’t ok!"u gona be waiting for ever and a day for that, 90% of them are only there to get wealthier by all the contacts they make, has been that way for the last 30_40 years, and lead by example?i dont need a politician to set an example for me, i was brought up not to be a cunt im not gona start acting like one just because our leaders act like that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate). You are right… minimum 25 years old to be a congressman, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president Every talks about Biden being too old.. but trump is only 2 years younger….. Indeed but Trump feels strong, very strong, the strongest, and he knows because he can see what strong is and he knows he is really strong. The world NEEDS the real president back in charge ,and The Don WILL be back in his rightful place this year . I reckon you are pulling our legs but I will ask this again as you ignored/missed it... ...even if you completely agree with Trump’s policies, doesn’t his personal attributes and history bother you in the slightest? Is the man who declared “grab them by the pussy” and such really the type of person you want to hold the most powerful job on the planet?. Surely we should be ignoring what any politician says in private regardless of what party they belong to. The important thing is what a politicians policies are and the impact on the economy . The electorate passeed judgement on him in 2016 and 2020. I do not see many people complaining about the performance of the USA between 2016 and 2020. Let's hope they elect a politician who will make America great again. It is one of the greatest countries in the world . The performance of their technology companies is incredible as are organisations such as the Deere Corporation Loving the tractor reference Pat. Nice shout out to one of your previous alter egos!
But no we should not be ignoring what politicians say in private. If they don’t like it, don’t become a politician and be held to higher standards!why should they be held to higher standards than everyone else? There not any different to anyone else in the world, unless of course you think politicians are more special than the general public, i wouldnt police what you or anyone else wants to say so why shouldnt politicians be able to say what they want? As long as they not breaking any laws by what there saying then what's the problem
If someone holds public office and is supposedly there to serve the will of the people, then in my opinion they should expect to be held to a higher standard. Nobody forces anyone to become a politician. It is their choice.so you think politicians are some how above the rest of us and shouldnt be able to say what they want? Id much rather someone said what they felt rather than say what they think i want to hear
I think politicians should not be criminals, self serving, lying, corrupt, racist, misogynists, call me old fashioned but there we are!
I’d rather they led by example!
If people in high office act like cunts then the idiots who look up to them will assume it is ok to act like cunts as well!
It isn’t ok!"You might think that but if more people don't think like that, you are technically out of step with what people want and would be the last person to advise on such things. That was tongue in cheek  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate). You are right… minimum 25 years old to be a congressman, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president Every talks about Biden being too old.. but trump is only 2 years younger….. Indeed but Trump feels strong, very strong, the strongest, and he knows because he can see what strong is and he knows he is really strong. The world NEEDS the real president back in charge ,and The Don WILL be back in his rightful place this year . I reckon you are pulling our legs but I will ask this again as you ignored/missed it... ...even if you completely agree with Trump’s policies, doesn’t his personal attributes and history bother you in the slightest? Is the man who declared “grab them by the pussy” and such really the type of person you want to hold the most powerful job on the planet?. Surely we should be ignoring what any politician says in private regardless of what party they belong to. The important thing is what a politicians policies are and the impact on the economy . The electorate passeed judgement on him in 2016 and 2020. I do not see many people complaining about the performance of the USA between 2016 and 2020. Let's hope they elect a politician who will make America great again. It is one of the greatest countries in the world . The performance of their technology companies is incredible as are organisations such as the Deere Corporation Loving the tractor reference Pat. Nice shout out to one of your previous alter egos!
But no we should not be ignoring what politicians say in private. If they don’t like it, don’t become a politician and be held to higher standards!why should they be held to higher standards than everyone else? There not any different to anyone else in the world, unless of course you think politicians are more special than the general public, i wouldnt police what you or anyone else wants to say so why shouldnt politicians be able to say what they want? As long as they not breaking any laws by what there saying then what's the problem
If someone holds public office and is supposedly there to serve the will of the people, then in my opinion they should expect to be held to a higher standard. Nobody forces anyone to become a politician. It is their choice.so you think politicians are some how above the rest of us and shouldnt be able to say what they want? Id much rather someone said what they felt rather than say what they think i want to hear
What about the content of their thoughts? That's important too, if they think "I want to get rich, I don't give a fuck about running the country" that's fine, but I'd prefer politicians who want to do their job. The job they're elected to do.like i said isnt it better to hear there thoughts? At least you get to find out the real them? Or would you rather they spout bollox that they dont belive but they are saying what you want to hear, id rather deal with a cunt who says what he thinks than a cunt who says wat he thinks will win him brownie points"Fair enough. But all that waffle bullshit is less important than their actions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A population of 500 hundred million people and the choice the Americans have is a guy who is plainly too old and another one who is just plain nasty and corrupt. Depressing for the world. Mind you look at the state of our leaders. Shocking indeed. I believe (might be wrong) that you have to be over 35 to be President? Or did I dream/make that up? I certainly think there should be maximum age for a President too. Probably 75 (so cannot be over 70 as a candidate). You are right… minimum 25 years old to be a congressman, 30 to be a senator, and 35 to be president Every talks about Biden being too old.. but trump is only 2 years younger….. Indeed but Trump feels strong, very strong, the strongest, and he knows because he can see what strong is and he knows he is really strong. The world NEEDS the real president back in charge ,and The Don WILL be back in his rightful place this year . I reckon you are pulling our legs but I will ask this again as you ignored/missed it... ...even if you completely agree with Trump’s policies, doesn’t his personal attributes and history bother you in the slightest? Is the man who declared “grab them by the pussy” and such really the type of person you want to hold the most powerful job on the planet?. Surely we should be ignoring what any politician says in private regardless of what party they belong to. The important thing is what a politicians policies are and the impact on the economy . The electorate passeed judgement on him in 2016 and 2020. I do not see many people complaining about the performance of the USA between 2016 and 2020. Let's hope they elect a politician who will make America great again. It is one of the greatest countries in the world . The performance of their technology companies is incredible as are organisations such as the Deere Corporation Loving the tractor reference Pat. Nice shout out to one of your previous alter egos!
But no we should not be ignoring what politicians say in private. If they don’t like it, don’t become a politician and be held to higher standards!why should they be held to higher standards than everyone else? There not any different to anyone else in the world, unless of course you think politicians are more special than the general public, i wouldnt police what you or anyone else wants to say so why shouldnt politicians be able to say what they want? As long as they not breaking any laws by what there saying then what's the problem
If someone holds public office and is supposedly there to serve the will of the people, then in my opinion they should expect to be held to a higher standard. Nobody forces anyone to become a politician. It is their choice.so you think politicians are some how above the rest of us and shouldnt be able to say what they want? Id much rather someone said what they felt rather than say what they think i want to hear
I think politicians should not be criminals, self serving, lying, corrupt, racist, misogynists, call me old fashioned but there we are!
I’d rather they led by example!
If people in high office act like cunts then the idiots who look up to them will assume it is ok to act like cunts as well!
It isn’t ok!
You might think that but if more people don't think like that, you are technically out of step with what people want and would be the last person to advise on such things.
That was tongue in cheek " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader?" Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader?" . Any rational person would want the individual who was good at running the country. Being perfect in your private life hardly even enters the equation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader?" In what way perfect in private life? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader?. Any rational person would want the individual who was good at running the country. Being perfect in your private life hardly even enters the equation. " That's Trump out then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or." But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be" I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. " So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself." Which of the charges against Trump would that refute? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself." Yeah that sounds dodgy as fuck. Poor indictment of USA politics and judiciary. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself. Which of the charges against Trump would that refute? " RICO charges against Trump in Georgia are funny as fuck tbf. Initiated by Willis, who appointed her boyfriend SP and has a judge who has the least experience in Georgia, who also once worked under Willis. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself. Yeah that sounds dodgy as fuck. Poor indictment of USA politics and judiciary. " Regrettably you are right. But I think it’s indicative of a general failing in previously accepted norms across Western society. In the UK we have seen the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary, the state broadcaster, the failure of Remoaners to accept the 2016 referendum results. All of this completely undermines the trust that the population would once have had in our institutions to be fair and impartial. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In the UK we have seen the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary, the state broadcaster, the failure of Remoaners to accept the 2016 referendum results. All of this completely undermines the trust that the population would once have had in our institutions to be fair and impartial. " I love that you use ‘remoaners’ and probably think you’re unbiased and representative, right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In the UK we have seen the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary, the state broadcaster, the failure of Remoaners to accept the 2016 referendum results. All of this completely undermines the trust that the population would once have had in our institutions to be fair and impartial. I love that you use ‘remoaners’ and probably think you’re unbiased and representative, right? " let's be generous and assume remoaners is for a small subset of remainers. Tbh I don't recall a time when these remoaners have abused our fair and impartial institutions but there may be a load of recency bias in this. They have lobbied for a cause they believe in, I agree, and sought all routes to get a result they are happier with. But that is how our system works. Fact is I could easily sidetrack this thread with a debate on "what the 2016 results were" and that any ruse that didn't stop the triggering of the article wasn't a ruse that ignored the referendum. The first bit of the OP statement is the one that worries me the most. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself. Yeah that sounds dodgy as fuck. Poor indictment of USA politics and judiciary. Regrettably you are right. But I think it’s indicative of a general failing in previously accepted norms across Western society. In the UK we have seen the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary, the state broadcaster, the failure of Remoaners to accept the 2016 referendum results. All of this completely undermines the trust that the population would once have had in our institutions to be fair and impartial. " I moan about the Brexit referendum result. Vocally at first. But it is what it is now. I do not think we should reverse as we will never get such a sweet deal again. But moaning is permitted in a democracy so I do not see the harm? I think you were making an interesting point then undermined yourself by including a false equivalence and insulting language. You were doing quite well until then Rog | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself. Yeah that sounds dodgy as fuck. Poor indictment of USA politics and judiciary. Regrettably you are right. But I think it’s indicative of a general failing in previously accepted norms across Western society. In the UK we have seen the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary, the state broadcaster, the failure of Remoaners to accept the 2016 referendum results. All of this completely undermines the trust that the population would once have had in our institutions to be fair and impartial. I moan about the Brexit referendum result. Vocally at first. But it is what it is now. I do not think we should reverse as we will never get such a sweet deal again. But moaning is permitted in a democracy so I do not see the harm? I think you were making an interesting point then undermined yourself by including a false equivalence and insulting language. You were doing quite well until then Rog "I think we're supposed to pretend that Brexit was a good idea. Don't ask any questions and don't point out any of the impacts that leaving the EU has had on the UK. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself. Yeah that sounds dodgy as fuck. Poor indictment of USA politics and judiciary. Regrettably you are right. But I think it’s indicative of a general failing in previously accepted norms across Western society. In the UK we have seen the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary, the state broadcaster, the failure of Remoaners to accept the 2016 referendum results. All of this completely undermines the trust that the population would once have had in our institutions to be fair and impartial. I moan about the Brexit referendum result. Vocally at first. But it is what it is now. I do not think we should reverse as we will never get such a sweet deal again. But moaning is permitted in a democracy so I do not see the harm? I think you were making an interesting point then undermined yourself by including a false equivalence and insulting language. You were doing quite well until then Rog "I hadn’t noticed you moaning about Brexit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself. Yeah that sounds dodgy as fuck. Poor indictment of USA politics and judiciary. Regrettably you are right. But I think it’s indicative of a general failing in previously accepted norms across Western society. In the UK we have seen the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary, the state broadcaster, the failure of Remoaners to accept the 2016 referendum results. All of this completely undermines the trust that the population would once have had in our institutions to be fair and impartial. " It's my right to not accept it, that the very basis of democracy unless your so biased and arrogant to think it only works one way.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself. Yeah that sounds dodgy as fuck. Poor indictment of USA politics and judiciary. Regrettably you are right. But I think it’s indicative of a general failing in previously accepted norms across Western society. In the UK we have seen the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary, the state broadcaster, the failure of Remoaners to accept the 2016 referendum results. All of this completely undermines the trust that the population would once have had in our institutions to be fair and impartial. I moan about the Brexit referendum result. Vocally at first. But it is what it is now. I do not think we should reverse as we will never get such a sweet deal again. But moaning is permitted in a democracy so I do not see the harm? I think you were making an interesting point then undermined yourself by including a false equivalence and insulting language. You were doing quite well until then Rog
I think we're supposed to pretend that Brexit was a good idea. Don't ask any questions and don't point out any of the impacts that leaving the EU has had on the UK."Most of us don't appreciate every issue no matter how unrelated to brexit is attributed to brexit by those who are not in favour of democracy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself. Yeah that sounds dodgy as fuck. Poor indictment of USA politics and judiciary. Regrettably you are right. But I think it’s indicative of a general failing in previously accepted norms across Western society. In the UK we have seen the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary, the state broadcaster, the failure of Remoaners to accept the 2016 referendum results. All of this completely undermines the trust that the population would once have had in our institutions to be fair and impartial. I moan about the Brexit referendum result. Vocally at first. But it is what it is now. I do not think we should reverse as we will never get such a sweet deal again. But moaning is permitted in a democracy so I do not see the harm? I think you were making an interesting point then undermined yourself by including a false equivalence and insulting language. You were doing quite well until then Rog
I think we're supposed to pretend that Brexit was a good idea. Don't ask any questions and don't point out any of the impacts that leaving the EU has had on the UK.
Most of us don't appreciate every issue no matter how unrelated to brexit is attributed to brexit by those who are not in favour of democracy. "What part of democracy prevents people holding views on subjects? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself. Yeah that sounds dodgy as fuck. Poor indictment of USA politics and judiciary. Regrettably you are right. But I think it’s indicative of a general failing in previously accepted norms across Western society. In the UK we have seen the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary, the state broadcaster, the failure of Remoaners to accept the 2016 referendum results. All of this completely undermines the trust that the population would once have had in our institutions to be fair and impartial. I moan about the Brexit referendum result. Vocally at first. But it is what it is now. I do not think we should reverse as we will never get such a sweet deal again. But moaning is permitted in a democracy so I do not see the harm? I think you were making an interesting point then undermined yourself by including a false equivalence and insulting language. You were doing quite well until then Rog
I think we're supposed to pretend that Brexit was a good idea. Don't ask any questions and don't point out any of the impacts that leaving the EU has had on the UK.
Most of us don't appreciate every issue no matter how unrelated to brexit is attributed to brexit by those who are not in favour of democracy. "Haven't seen that happening, i wouldn't worry about it. It's not holding us back the way they pretending Brexit was a good idea is. Yes the people who undermined democracy when the leave campaigns overspent illegally have a lot to answer for. As do those who convinced people to vote leave by lying to them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself. Yeah that sounds dodgy as fuck. Poor indictment of USA politics and judiciary. Regrettably you are right. But I think it’s indicative of a general failing in previously accepted norms across Western society. In the UK we have seen the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary, the state broadcaster, the failure of Remoaners to accept the 2016 referendum results. All of this completely undermines the trust that the population would once have had in our institutions to be fair and impartial. I moan about the Brexit referendum result. Vocally at first. But it is what it is now. I do not think we should reverse as we will never get such a sweet deal again. But moaning is permitted in a democracy so I do not see the harm? I think you were making an interesting point then undermined yourself by including a false equivalence and insulting language. You were doing quite well until then Rog
I think we're supposed to pretend that Brexit was a good idea. Don't ask any questions and don't point out any of the impacts that leaving the EU has had on the UK.
Most of us don't appreciate every issue no matter how unrelated to brexit is attributed to brexit by those who are not in favour of democracy.
What part of democracy prevents people holding views on subjects?"You are making up a question irrelevant to my original post. Not accepting a democratic vote.. A little like Trump, hurts doesn't it.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself. Yeah that sounds dodgy as fuck. Poor indictment of USA politics and judiciary. Regrettably you are right. But I think it’s indicative of a general failing in previously accepted norms across Western society. In the UK we have seen the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary, the state broadcaster, the failure of Remoaners to accept the 2016 referendum results. All of this completely undermines the trust that the population would once have had in our institutions to be fair and impartial. I moan about the Brexit referendum result. Vocally at first. But it is what it is now. I do not think we should reverse as we will never get such a sweet deal again. But moaning is permitted in a democracy so I do not see the harm? I think you were making an interesting point then undermined yourself by including a false equivalence and insulting language. You were doing quite well until then Rog
I hadn’t noticed you moaning about Brexit."Not today no. But I have many times. But I am a pragmatist so much as I think Brexit was a stupid decision and on balance, while far from perfect, the UK was better in than out, I do not support rejoining (certainly not for a long time anyway). Part of that is because the EU would never allow us to rejoin and stay out of Schengen or retain our sovereign currency. With the UK thorn now out of the Federalists side, closer EU integration is inevitable and that is not something I would support. Basically Brexit is the catalyst to enable much of the arguments put forward by Leave to come true (and they will say “see I told you so” even though the UK remaining would likely have stopped it). Another part is that I truly want and hope the Leave supporters are right and the UK will flourish and we will all be better off because of it. I’m a big boy (stop sniggering at the back) and happy to concede if I am proving wrong about my Brexit fears. The final part is that I like winding up Brexiters because they are so easily triggered. Childish I know, but life gets too heavy sometimes! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself. Yeah that sounds dodgy as fuck. Poor indictment of USA politics and judiciary. Regrettably you are right. But I think it’s indicative of a general failing in previously accepted norms across Western society. In the UK we have seen the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary, the state broadcaster, the failure of Remoaners to accept the 2016 referendum results. All of this completely undermines the trust that the population would once have had in our institutions to be fair and impartial. I moan about the Brexit referendum result. Vocally at first. But it is what it is now. I do not think we should reverse as we will never get such a sweet deal again. But moaning is permitted in a democracy so I do not see the harm? I think you were making an interesting point then undermined yourself by including a false equivalence and insulting language. You were doing quite well until then Rog
I think we're supposed to pretend that Brexit was a good idea. Don't ask any questions and don't point out any of the impacts that leaving the EU has had on the UK.
Most of us don't appreciate every issue no matter how unrelated to brexit is attributed to brexit by those who are not in favour of democracy.
What part of democracy prevents people holding views on subjects?
You are making up a question irrelevant to my original post.
Not accepting a democratic vote.. A little like Trump, hurts doesn't it.. "What vote didn’t I accept? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself. Yeah that sounds dodgy as fuck. Poor indictment of USA politics and judiciary. Regrettably you are right. But I think it’s indicative of a general failing in previously accepted norms across Western society. In the UK we have seen the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary, the state broadcaster, the failure of Remoaners to accept the 2016 referendum results. All of this completely undermines the trust that the population would once have had in our institutions to be fair and impartial. I moan about the Brexit referendum result. Vocally at first. But it is what it is now. I do not think we should reverse as we will never get such a sweet deal again. But moaning is permitted in a democracy so I do not see the harm? I think you were making an interesting point then undermined yourself by including a false equivalence and insulting language. You were doing quite well until then Rog
I think we're supposed to pretend that Brexit was a good idea. Don't ask any questions and don't point out any of the impacts that leaving the EU has had on the UK.
Most of us don't appreciate every issue no matter how unrelated to brexit is attributed to brexit by those who are not in favour of democracy. "You mean like this one which is about Trump? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What vote didn’t I accept? " When people throw this out. Do they mean: 1. Don't accept that Brexit has happend. 2. Don't accept that Brexit was a good idea. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What vote didn’t I accept? When people throw this out. Do they mean: 1. Don't accept that Brexit has happend. 2. Don't accept that Brexit was a good idea." This is exactly it - I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t accept that leave won. Now just because leave won, does that mean we all have to fall in line and praise the wonderful Brexit project? And if we fail to do so we don’t accept the result? Because if that’s the case, there’s going to be a lot of Labour supporters on here after the next election. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What vote didn’t I accept? When people throw this out. Do they mean: 1. Don't accept that Brexit has happend. 2. Don't accept that Brexit was a good idea. This is exactly it - I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t accept that leave won. Now just because leave won, does that mean we all have to fall in line and praise the wonderful Brexit project? And if we fail to do so we don’t accept the result? Because if that’s the case, there’s going to be a lot of Labour supporters on here after the next election. " These are good points. We used to often see Brexiters saying “we won you lost get over it” by which they meant “can you stop criticising the thing I supported”. It really is quite silly. Why should anyone shut up about something they may feel passionate about? I kind of get some Brexiters feeling threatened by rejoin referendums being proposed. But criticising Brexit and pointing out issues or concerns that have arisen as a result of Brexit are as valid as supporters bringing up good news and wins. Fingers crossed the wins start to outweigh the losses. Until they do, then remainers may continue to be remoaners, and all power to them! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What vote didn’t I accept? When people throw this out. Do they mean: 1. Don't accept that Brexit has happend. 2. Don't accept that Brexit was a good idea. This is exactly it - I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t accept that leave won. Now just because leave won, does that mean we all have to fall in line and praise the wonderful Brexit project? And if we fail to do so we don’t accept the result? Because if that’s the case, there’s going to be a lot of Labour supporters on here after the next election. These are good points. We used to often see Brexiters saying “we won you lost get over it” by which they meant “can you stop criticising the thing I supported”. It really is quite silly. Why should anyone shut up about something they may feel passionate about? I kind of get some Brexiters feeling threatened by rejoin referendums being proposed. But criticising Brexit and pointing out issues or concerns that have arisen as a result of Brexit are as valid as supporters bringing up good news and wins. Fingers crossed the wins start to outweigh the losses. Until they do, then remainers may continue to be remoaners, and all power to them! " There should never have been campaigns for a second referendum, those are exactly what gives leave voters the ammo to say 'remoaners don't accept it'. It's funny you speak about being able to post bad, as much as leave voters can post good because I continued a thread on economy and jobs, not one person has stayed on topic, not even the person I was debating when the last thread ended  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What vote didn’t I accept? When people throw this out. Do they mean: 1. Don't accept that Brexit has happend. 2. Don't accept that Brexit was a good idea. This is exactly it - I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t accept that leave won. Now just because leave won, does that mean we all have to fall in line and praise the wonderful Brexit project? And if we fail to do so we don’t accept the result? Because if that’s the case, there’s going to be a lot of Labour supporters on here after the next election. These are good points. We used to often see Brexiters saying “we won you lost get over it” by which they meant “can you stop criticising the thing I supported”. It really is quite silly. Why should anyone shut up about something they may feel passionate about? I kind of get some Brexiters feeling threatened by rejoin referendums being proposed. But criticising Brexit and pointing out issues or concerns that have arisen as a result of Brexit are as valid as supporters bringing up good news and wins. Fingers crossed the wins start to outweigh the losses. Until they do, then remainers may continue to be remoaners, and all power to them! There should never have been campaigns for a second referendum, those are exactly what gives leave voters the ammo to say 'remoaners don't accept it'. It's funny you speak about being able to post bad, as much as leave voters can post good because I continued a thread on economy and jobs, not one person has stayed on topic, not even the person I was debating when the last thread ended "If Farage and Rees-Mogg hadn’t suggested second referendums, then maybe it wouldn’t have caught on | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What vote didn’t I accept? When people throw this out. Do they mean: 1. Don't accept that Brexit has happend. 2. Don't accept that Brexit was a good idea. This is exactly it - I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t accept that leave won. Now just because leave won, does that mean we all have to fall in line and praise the wonderful Brexit project? And if we fail to do so we don’t accept the result? Because if that’s the case, there’s going to be a lot of Labour supporters on here after the next election. These are good points. We used to often see Brexiters saying “we won you lost get over it” by which they meant “can you stop criticising the thing I supported”. It really is quite silly. Why should anyone shut up about something they may feel passionate about? I kind of get some Brexiters feeling threatened by rejoin referendums being proposed. But criticising Brexit and pointing out issues or concerns that have arisen as a result of Brexit are as valid as supporters bringing up good news and wins. Fingers crossed the wins start to outweigh the losses. Until they do, then remainers may continue to be remoaners, and all power to them! There should never have been campaigns for a second referendum, those are exactly what gives leave voters the ammo to say 'remoaners don't accept it'. It's funny you speak about being able to post bad, as much as leave voters can post good because I continued a thread on economy and jobs, not one person has stayed on topic, not even the person I was debating when the last thread ended
If Farage and Rees-Mogg hadn’t suggested second referendums, then maybe it wouldn’t have caught on "“Of course I don’t want one, we won a referendum and that should have been that. But I do not trust the sheer dishonesty of our political class,” This Farage?? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What vote didn’t I accept? When people throw this out. Do they mean: 1. Don't accept that Brexit has happend. 2. Don't accept that Brexit was a good idea. This is exactly it - I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t accept that leave won. Now just because leave won, does that mean we all have to fall in line and praise the wonderful Brexit project? And if we fail to do so we don’t accept the result? Because if that’s the case, there’s going to be a lot of Labour supporters on here after the next election. These are good points. We used to often see Brexiters saying “we won you lost get over it” by which they meant “can you stop criticising the thing I supported”. It really is quite silly. Why should anyone shut up about something they may feel passionate about? I kind of get some Brexiters feeling threatened by rejoin referendums being proposed. But criticising Brexit and pointing out issues or concerns that have arisen as a result of Brexit are as valid as supporters bringing up good news and wins. Fingers crossed the wins start to outweigh the losses. Until they do, then remainers may continue to be remoaners, and all power to them! There should never have been campaigns for a second referendum, those are exactly what gives leave voters the ammo to say 'remoaners don't accept it'. It's funny you speak about being able to post bad, as much as leave voters can post good because I continued a thread on economy and jobs, not one person has stayed on topic, not even the person I was debating when the last thread ended
If Farage and Rees-Mogg hadn’t suggested second referendums, then maybe it wouldn’t have caught on
“Of course I don’t want one, we won a referendum and that should have been that. But I do not trust the sheer dishonesty of our political class,”
This Farage??"This one: “Maybe, just maybe I’m reaching the point of thinking that we should have a second referendum … on EU membership,” Rees-Mogg’s idea was actually the best though: “Indeed, we could have two referendums…As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed.” That was an eminently sensible proposal, I’m sure we’d all agree. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What vote didn’t I accept? When people throw this out. Do they mean: 1. Don't accept that Brexit has happend. 2. Don't accept that Brexit was a good idea. This is exactly it - I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t accept that leave won. Now just because leave won, does that mean we all have to fall in line and praise the wonderful Brexit project? And if we fail to do so we don’t accept the result? Because if that’s the case, there’s going to be a lot of Labour supporters on here after the next election. These are good points. We used to often see Brexiters saying “we won you lost get over it” by which they meant “can you stop criticising the thing I supported”. It really is quite silly. Why should anyone shut up about something they may feel passionate about? I kind of get some Brexiters feeling threatened by rejoin referendums being proposed. But criticising Brexit and pointing out issues or concerns that have arisen as a result of Brexit are as valid as supporters bringing up good news and wins. Fingers crossed the wins start to outweigh the losses. Until they do, then remainers may continue to be remoaners, and all power to them! There should never have been campaigns for a second referendum, those are exactly what gives leave voters the ammo to say 'remoaners don't accept it'. It's funny you speak about being able to post bad, as much as leave voters can post good because I continued a thread on economy and jobs, not one person has stayed on topic, not even the person I was debating when the last thread ended
If Farage and Rees-Mogg hadn’t suggested second referendums, then maybe it wouldn’t have caught on
“Of course I don’t want one, we won a referendum and that should have been that. But I do not trust the sheer dishonesty of our political class,”
This Farage??
This one:
“Maybe, just maybe I’m reaching the point of thinking that we should have a second referendum … on EU membership,”
Rees-Mogg’s idea was actually the best though:
“Indeed, we could have two referendums…As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed.”
That was an eminently sensible proposal, I’m sure we’d all agree.
"Nice way to take words out of context
Do you need some context? I'm sure you already know, don't you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What vote didn’t I accept? When people throw this out. Do they mean: 1. Don't accept that Brexit has happend. 2. Don't accept that Brexit was a good idea. This is exactly it - I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t accept that leave won. Now just because leave won, does that mean we all have to fall in line and praise the wonderful Brexit project? And if we fail to do so we don’t accept the result? Because if that’s the case, there’s going to be a lot of Labour supporters on here after the next election. These are good points. We used to often see Brexiters saying “we won you lost get over it” by which they meant “can you stop criticising the thing I supported”. It really is quite silly. Why should anyone shut up about something they may feel passionate about? I kind of get some Brexiters feeling threatened by rejoin referendums being proposed. But criticising Brexit and pointing out issues or concerns that have arisen as a result of Brexit are as valid as supporters bringing up good news and wins. Fingers crossed the wins start to outweigh the losses. Until they do, then remainers may continue to be remoaners, and all power to them! There should never have been campaigns for a second referendum, those are exactly what gives leave voters the ammo to say 'remoaners don't accept it'. It's funny you speak about being able to post bad, as much as leave voters can post good because I continued a thread on economy and jobs, not one person has stayed on topic, not even the person I was debating when the last thread ended
If Farage and Rees-Mogg hadn’t suggested second referendums, then maybe it wouldn’t have caught on
“Of course I don’t want one, we won a referendum and that should have been that. But I do not trust the sheer dishonesty of our political class,”
This Farage??
This one:
“Maybe, just maybe I’m reaching the point of thinking that we should have a second referendum … on EU membership,”
Rees-Mogg’s idea was actually the best though:
“Indeed, we could have two referendums…As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed.”
That was an eminently sensible proposal, I’m sure we’d all agree.
Nice way to take words out of context
Do you need some context? I'm sure you already know, don't you."I lived and breathed every bit of Brexit from 2014-2020 (live tweeted most of Parliament TV at the height of it!) I’m good, thanks. The point that we’re getting away from is that being anti-Brexit isn’t anti democratic. (Nor indeed was campaigning for a second referendum. Remember Farage saying that 52/48 wouldn’t be the end of it before the result came in). If you try to make those who oppose you within lawful means to be anti-democratic, you’re being anti-democratic yourself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyhoo, I’m sure we’re all accepting of the fact that being against Brexit does not make one anti-democratic nor unaccepting of democracy. That would be a churlish, idiotic thing to say, wouldn’t it?" Just like Trump is accepting of votes? that is how I see those amongst us who can't stop banging on about brexit. News flash, it is over and I bet you have not been impacted today other than having a blue passport. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyhoo, I’m sure we’re all accepting of the fact that being against Brexit does not make one anti-democratic nor unaccepting of democracy. That would be a churlish, idiotic thing to say, wouldn’t it? Just like Trump is accepting of votes? that is how I see those amongst us who can't stop banging on about brexit. News flash, it is over and I bet you have not been impacted today other than having a blue passport. " Trump literally denied losing an election. Which remainer has done the same? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself. Yeah that sounds dodgy as fuck. Poor indictment of USA politics and judiciary. Regrettably you are right. But I think it’s indicative of a general failing in previously accepted norms across Western society. In the UK we have seen the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary, the state broadcaster, the failure of Remoaners to accept the 2016 referendum results. All of this completely undermines the trust that the population would once have had in our institutions to be fair and impartial. I moan about the Brexit referendum result. Vocally at first. But it is what it is now. I do not think we should reverse as we will never get such a sweet deal again. But moaning is permitted in a democracy so I do not see the harm? I think you were making an interesting point then undermined yourself by including a false equivalence and insulting language. You were doing quite well until then Rog
I think we're supposed to pretend that Brexit was a good idea. Don't ask any questions and don't point out any of the impacts that leaving the EU has had on the UK.
Most of us don't appreciate every issue no matter how unrelated to brexit is attributed to brexit by those who are not in favour of democracy.
You mean like this one which is about Trump?"Spot on, any opportunity to moan about brexit.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself. Yeah that sounds dodgy as fuck. Poor indictment of USA politics and judiciary. Regrettably you are right. But I think it’s indicative of a general failing in previously accepted norms across Western society. In the UK we have seen the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary, the state broadcaster, the failure of Remoaners to accept the 2016 referendum results. All of this completely undermines the trust that the population would once have had in our institutions to be fair and impartial. I moan about the Brexit referendum result. Vocally at first. But it is what it is now. I do not think we should reverse as we will never get such a sweet deal again. But moaning is permitted in a democracy so I do not see the harm? I think you were making an interesting point then undermined yourself by including a false equivalence and insulting language. You were doing quite well until then Rog
I think we're supposed to pretend that Brexit was a good idea. Don't ask any questions and don't point out any of the impacts that leaving the EU has had on the UK.
Most of us don't appreciate every issue no matter how unrelated to brexit is attributed to brexit by those who are not in favour of democracy.
You mean like this one which is about Trump?
Spot on, any opportunity to moan about brexit....
"But you claim that moaning about Brexit is the same as not accepting it, right? Are you ready to admit that you’re wrong? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What vote didn’t I accept? When people throw this out. Do they mean: 1. Don't accept that Brexit has happend. 2. Don't accept that Brexit was a good idea. This is exactly it - I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t accept that leave won. Now just because leave won, does that mean we all have to fall in line and praise the wonderful Brexit project? And if we fail to do so we don’t accept the result? Because if that’s the case, there’s going to be a lot of Labour supporters on here after the next election. These are good points. We used to often see Brexiters saying “we won you lost get over it” by which they meant “can you stop criticising the thing I supported”. It really is quite silly. Why should anyone shut up about something they may feel passionate about? I kind of get some Brexiters feeling threatened by rejoin referendums being proposed. But criticising Brexit and pointing out issues or concerns that have arisen as a result of Brexit are as valid as supporters bringing up good news and wins. Fingers crossed the wins start to outweigh the losses. Until they do, then remainers may continue to be remoaners, and all power to them! There should never have been campaigns for a second referendum, those are exactly what gives leave voters the ammo to say 'remoaners don't accept it'. It's funny you speak about being able to post bad, as much as leave voters can post good because I continued a thread on economy and jobs, not one person has stayed on topic, not even the person I was debating when the last thread ended
If Farage and Rees-Mogg hadn’t suggested second referendums, then maybe it wouldn’t have caught on
“Of course I don’t want one, we won a referendum and that should have been that. But I do not trust the sheer dishonesty of our political class,”
This Farage??
This one:
“Maybe, just maybe I’m reaching the point of thinking that we should have a second referendum … on EU membership,”
Rees-Mogg’s idea was actually the best though:
“Indeed, we could have two referendums…As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed.”
That was an eminently sensible proposal, I’m sure we’d all agree.
Nice way to take words out of context
Do you need some context? I'm sure you already know, don't you.
I lived and breathed every bit of Brexit from 2014-2020 (live tweeted most of Parliament TV at the height of it!) I’m good, thanks.
The point that we’re getting away from is that being anti-Brexit isn’t anti democratic. (Nor indeed was campaigning for a second referendum. Remember Farage saying that 52/48 wouldn’t be the end of it before the result came in).
If you try to make those who oppose you within lawful means to be anti-democratic, you’re being anti-democratic yourself. "If you know the context I'd urge you not to crop quotes and use them to try prove points. It's disingenuous at best. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself. Yeah that sounds dodgy as fuck. Poor indictment of USA politics and judiciary. Regrettably you are right. But I think it’s indicative of a general failing in previously accepted norms across Western society. In the UK we have seen the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary, the state broadcaster, the failure of Remoaners to accept the 2016 referendum results. All of this completely undermines the trust that the population would once have had in our institutions to be fair and impartial. I moan about the Brexit referendum result. Vocally at first. But it is what it is now. I do not think we should reverse as we will never get such a sweet deal again. But moaning is permitted in a democracy so I do not see the harm? I think you were making an interesting point then undermined yourself by including a false equivalence and insulting language. You were doing quite well until then Rog
I hadn’t noticed you moaning about Brexit.
Not today no. But I have many times. But I am a pragmatist so much as I think Brexit was a stupid decision and on balance, while far from perfect, the UK was better in than out, I do not support rejoining (certainly not for a long time anyway).
Part of that is because the EU would never allow us to rejoin and stay out of Schengen or retain our sovereign currency. With the UK thorn now out of the Federalists side, closer EU integration is inevitable and that is not something I would support. Basically Brexit is the catalyst to enable much of the arguments put forward by Leave to come true (and they will say “see I told you so” even though the UK remaining would likely have stopped it).
Another part is that I truly want and hope the Leave supporters are right and the UK will flourish and we will all be better off because of it. I’m a big boy (stop sniggering at the back) and happy to concede if I am proving wrong about my Brexit fears.
The final part is that I like winding up Brexiters because they are so easily triggered. Childish I know, but life gets too heavy sometimes!
"If I were to look at EU membership from purely an economic perspective, which I know Remoaners have to, then I’d be perfectly happy to be proven wrong. If eurozone growth were running at 10% and we were bungling along at next to zero I’d say well yes let’s monitor this situation over a decade or so and see if we have made a mistake. But that isn’t the case. The EU is as stagnant as ever and has made some appalling decisions around energy and net zero policies, with its German engine room looking like a total basket case. My view at the time and now is the same. Europe generally is a declining part of the global economy and the UK’s only means of not declining with it is to detach ourselves. Oddly if the EU is performing badly economically (as it is) there is no point joining it, and if it’s performing really well we probably wouldn’t want to join on their terms. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself. Yeah that sounds dodgy as fuck. Poor indictment of USA politics and judiciary. Regrettably you are right. But I think it’s indicative of a general failing in previously accepted norms across Western society. In the UK we have seen the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary, the state broadcaster, the failure of Remoaners to accept the 2016 referendum results. All of this completely undermines the trust that the population would once have had in our institutions to be fair and impartial. I moan about the Brexit referendum result. Vocally at first. But it is what it is now. I do not think we should reverse as we will never get such a sweet deal again. But moaning is permitted in a democracy so I do not see the harm? I think you were making an interesting point then undermined yourself by including a false equivalence and insulting language. You were doing quite well until then Rog
I think we're supposed to pretend that Brexit was a good idea. Don't ask any questions and don't point out any of the impacts that leaving the EU has had on the UK.
Most of us don't appreciate every issue no matter how unrelated to brexit is attributed to brexit by those who are not in favour of democracy.
You mean like this one which is about Trump?
Spot on, any opportunity to moan about brexit....
"To be fair it was Rog who brought up Brexit (well “Remoaners”) so buck stops with him | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself. Yeah that sounds dodgy as fuck. Poor indictment of USA politics and judiciary. Regrettably you are right. But I think it’s indicative of a general failing in previously accepted norms across Western society. In the UK we have seen the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary, the state broadcaster, the failure of Remoaners to accept the 2016 referendum results. All of this completely undermines the trust that the population would once have had in our institutions to be fair and impartial. I moan about the Brexit referendum result. Vocally at first. But it is what it is now. I do not think we should reverse as we will never get such a sweet deal again. But moaning is permitted in a democracy so I do not see the harm? I think you were making an interesting point then undermined yourself by including a false equivalence and insulting language. You were doing quite well until then Rog
I think we're supposed to pretend that Brexit was a good idea. Don't ask any questions and don't point out any of the impacts that leaving the EU has had on the UK.
Most of us don't appreciate every issue no matter how unrelated to brexit is attributed to brexit by those who are not in favour of democracy.
You mean like this one which is about Trump?
Spot on, any opportunity to moan about brexit....
To be fair it was Rog who brought up Brexit (well “Remoaners”) so buck stops with him "It was but there was more, you chose to focus on the Brexit angle (that's fair as he brought up it) but then the minions jumped in and now we're nowhere near Trump | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What vote didn’t I accept? When people throw this out. Do they mean: 1. Don't accept that Brexit has happend. 2. Don't accept that Brexit was a good idea. This is exactly it - I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t accept that leave won. Now just because leave won, does that mean we all have to fall in line and praise the wonderful Brexit project? And if we fail to do so we don’t accept the result? Because if that’s the case, there’s going to be a lot of Labour supporters on here after the next election. These are good points. We used to often see Brexiters saying “we won you lost get over it” by which they meant “can you stop criticising the thing I supported”. It really is quite silly. Why should anyone shut up about something they may feel passionate about? I kind of get some Brexiters feeling threatened by rejoin referendums being proposed. But criticising Brexit and pointing out issues or concerns that have arisen as a result of Brexit are as valid as supporters bringing up good news and wins. Fingers crossed the wins start to outweigh the losses. Until they do, then remainers may continue to be remoaners, and all power to them! There should never have been campaigns for a second referendum, those are exactly what gives leave voters the ammo to say 'remoaners don't accept it'. It's funny you speak about being able to post bad, as much as leave voters can post good because I continued a thread on economy and jobs, not one person has stayed on topic, not even the person I was debating when the last thread ended
If Farage and Rees-Mogg hadn’t suggested second referendums, then maybe it wouldn’t have caught on
“Of course I don’t want one, we won a referendum and that should have been that. But I do not trust the sheer dishonesty of our political class,”
This Farage??
This one:
“Maybe, just maybe I’m reaching the point of thinking that we should have a second referendum … on EU membership,”
Rees-Mogg’s idea was actually the best though:
“Indeed, we could have two referendums…As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed.”
That was an eminently sensible proposal, I’m sure we’d all agree.
Nice way to take words out of context
Do you need some context? I'm sure you already know, don't you.
I lived and breathed every bit of Brexit from 2014-2020 (live tweeted most of Parliament TV at the height of it!) I’m good, thanks.
The point that we’re getting away from is that being anti-Brexit isn’t anti democratic. (Nor indeed was campaigning for a second referendum. Remember Farage saying that 52/48 wouldn’t be the end of it before the result came in).
If you try to make those who oppose you within lawful means to be anti-democratic, you’re being anti-democratic yourself.
If you know the context I'd urge you not to crop quotes and use them to try prove points. It's disingenuous at best."The general point is that for you to claim that a second referendum would have been anti-democratic was incorrect. One could have been held happily, had parliament chosen to do so. I referenced Farage and Rees-Mogg whilst using a wee smiley face because I was being a touch cheeky - it’s amusing to use their quotes. (The best one is Farage saying that 52/48 wouldn’t ben the end of it) Democracy isn’t what one side says it is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What vote didn’t I accept? When people throw this out. Do they mean: 1. Don't accept that Brexit has happend. 2. Don't accept that Brexit was a good idea. This is exactly it - I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t accept that leave won. Now just because leave won, does that mean we all have to fall in line and praise the wonderful Brexit project? And if we fail to do so we don’t accept the result? Because if that’s the case, there’s going to be a lot of Labour supporters on here after the next election. These are good points. We used to often see Brexiters saying “we won you lost get over it” by which they meant “can you stop criticising the thing I supported”. It really is quite silly. Why should anyone shut up about something they may feel passionate about? I kind of get some Brexiters feeling threatened by rejoin referendums being proposed. But criticising Brexit and pointing out issues or concerns that have arisen as a result of Brexit are as valid as supporters bringing up good news and wins. Fingers crossed the wins start to outweigh the losses. Until they do, then remainers may continue to be remoaners, and all power to them! There should never have been campaigns for a second referendum, those are exactly what gives leave voters the ammo to say 'remoaners don't accept it'. It's funny you speak about being able to post bad, as much as leave voters can post good because I continued a thread on economy and jobs, not one person has stayed on topic, not even the person I was debating when the last thread ended
If Farage and Rees-Mogg hadn’t suggested second referendums, then maybe it wouldn’t have caught on
“Of course I don’t want one, we won a referendum and that should have been that. But I do not trust the sheer dishonesty of our political class,”
This Farage??
This one:
“Maybe, just maybe I’m reaching the point of thinking that we should have a second referendum … on EU membership,”
Rees-Mogg’s idea was actually the best though:
“Indeed, we could have two referendums…As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed.”
That was an eminently sensible proposal, I’m sure we’d all agree.
Nice way to take words out of context
Do you need some context? I'm sure you already know, don't you.
I lived and breathed every bit of Brexit from 2014-2020 (live tweeted most of Parliament TV at the height of it!) I’m good, thanks.
The point that we’re getting away from is that being anti-Brexit isn’t anti democratic. (Nor indeed was campaigning for a second referendum. Remember Farage saying that 52/48 wouldn’t be the end of it before the result came in).
If you try to make those who oppose you within lawful means to be anti-democratic, you’re being anti-democratic yourself.
If you know the context I'd urge you not to crop quotes and use them to try prove points. It's disingenuous at best.
The general point is that for you to claim that a second referendum would have been anti-democratic was incorrect. One could have been held happily, had parliament chosen to do so. I referenced Farage and Rees-Mogg whilst using a wee smiley face because I was being a touch cheeky - it’s amusing to use their quotes. (The best one is Farage saying that 52/48 wouldn’t ben the end of it)
Democracy isn’t what one side says it is. "I didn't claim any second referendum would be anti-democratic. Learn to read bud. Parliament chose to have a one off referendum, we knew this before the vote. Rees-Mogg said years before we could have a 3 way ballot, Cameron chose not to implement that. And as for Farage saying 52-48 wouldn't be the end of it, he can think that but I guarantee Cameron would have told him where to go. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What vote didn’t I accept? When people throw this out. Do they mean: 1. Don't accept that Brexit has happend. 2. Don't accept that Brexit was a good idea. This is exactly it - I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t accept that leave won. Now just because leave won, does that mean we all have to fall in line and praise the wonderful Brexit project? And if we fail to do so we don’t accept the result? Because if that’s the case, there’s going to be a lot of Labour supporters on here after the next election. These are good points. We used to often see Brexiters saying “we won you lost get over it” by which they meant “can you stop criticising the thing I supported”. It really is quite silly. Why should anyone shut up about something they may feel passionate about? I kind of get some Brexiters feeling threatened by rejoin referendums being proposed. But criticising Brexit and pointing out issues or concerns that have arisen as a result of Brexit are as valid as supporters bringing up good news and wins. Fingers crossed the wins start to outweigh the losses. Until they do, then remainers may continue to be remoaners, and all power to them! There should never have been campaigns for a second referendum, those are exactly what gives leave voters the ammo to say 'remoaners don't accept it'. It's funny you speak about being able to post bad, as much as leave voters can post good because I continued a thread on economy and jobs, not one person has stayed on topic, not even the person I was debating when the last thread ended
If Farage and Rees-Mogg hadn’t suggested second referendums, then maybe it wouldn’t have caught on
“Of course I don’t want one, we won a referendum and that should have been that. But I do not trust the sheer dishonesty of our political class,”
This Farage??
This one:
“Maybe, just maybe I’m reaching the point of thinking that we should have a second referendum … on EU membership,”
Rees-Mogg’s idea was actually the best though:
“Indeed, we could have two referendums…As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed.”
That was an eminently sensible proposal, I’m sure we’d all agree.
Nice way to take words out of context
Do you need some context? I'm sure you already know, don't you.
I lived and breathed every bit of Brexit from 2014-2020 (live tweeted most of Parliament TV at the height of it!) I’m good, thanks.
The point that we’re getting away from is that being anti-Brexit isn’t anti democratic. (Nor indeed was campaigning for a second referendum. Remember Farage saying that 52/48 wouldn’t be the end of it before the result came in).
If you try to make those who oppose you within lawful means to be anti-democratic, you’re being anti-democratic yourself.
If you know the context I'd urge you not to crop quotes and use them to try prove points. It's disingenuous at best.
The general point is that for you to claim that a second referendum would have been anti-democratic was incorrect. One could have been held happily, had parliament chosen to do so. I referenced Farage and Rees-Mogg whilst using a wee smiley face because I was being a touch cheeky - it’s amusing to use their quotes. (The best one is Farage saying that 52/48 wouldn’t ben the end of it)
Democracy isn’t what one side says it is.
I didn't claim any second referendum would be anti-democratic. Learn to read bud.
Parliament chose to have a one off referendum, we knew this before the vote. Rees-Mogg said years before we could have a 3 way ballot, Cameron chose not to implement that. And as for Farage saying 52-48 wouldn't be the end of it, he can think that but I guarantee Cameron would have told him where to go. "And would Farage have listened? Or would he have carried on campaigning to leave? What’s the difference between Farage continuing his battle after remain winning, or remainers carrying on the battle after leave winning? Exactly the same, right? I wonder if Faragists would see themselves as antidemocratic? Or if they’d consider themselves as unaccepting of the result? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What vote didn’t I accept? When people throw this out. Do they mean: 1. Don't accept that Brexit has happend. 2. Don't accept that Brexit was a good idea. This is exactly it - I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t accept that leave won. Now just because leave won, does that mean we all have to fall in line and praise the wonderful Brexit project? And if we fail to do so we don’t accept the result? Because if that’s the case, there’s going to be a lot of Labour supporters on here after the next election. These are good points. We used to often see Brexiters saying “we won you lost get over it” by which they meant “can you stop criticising the thing I supported”. It really is quite silly. Why should anyone shut up about something they may feel passionate about? I kind of get some Brexiters feeling threatened by rejoin referendums being proposed. But criticising Brexit and pointing out issues or concerns that have arisen as a result of Brexit are as valid as supporters bringing up good news and wins. Fingers crossed the wins start to outweigh the losses. Until they do, then remainers may continue to be remoaners, and all power to them! There should never have been campaigns for a second referendum, those are exactly what gives leave voters the ammo to say 'remoaners don't accept it'. It's funny you speak about being able to post bad, as much as leave voters can post good because I continued a thread on economy and jobs, not one person has stayed on topic, not even the person I was debating when the last thread ended
If Farage and Rees-Mogg hadn’t suggested second referendums, then maybe it wouldn’t have caught on
“Of course I don’t want one, we won a referendum and that should have been that. But I do not trust the sheer dishonesty of our political class,”
This Farage??
This one:
“Maybe, just maybe I’m reaching the point of thinking that we should have a second referendum … on EU membership,”
Rees-Mogg’s idea was actually the best though:
“Indeed, we could have two referendums…As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed.”
That was an eminently sensible proposal, I’m sure we’d all agree.
Nice way to take words out of context
Do you need some context? I'm sure you already know, don't you.
I lived and breathed every bit of Brexit from 2014-2020 (live tweeted most of Parliament TV at the height of it!) I’m good, thanks.
The point that we’re getting away from is that being anti-Brexit isn’t anti democratic. (Nor indeed was campaigning for a second referendum. Remember Farage saying that 52/48 wouldn’t be the end of it before the result came in).
If you try to make those who oppose you within lawful means to be anti-democratic, you’re being anti-democratic yourself.
If you know the context I'd urge you not to crop quotes and use them to try prove points. It's disingenuous at best.
The general point is that for you to claim that a second referendum would have been anti-democratic was incorrect. One could have been held happily, had parliament chosen to do so. I referenced Farage and Rees-Mogg whilst using a wee smiley face because I was being a touch cheeky - it’s amusing to use their quotes. (The best one is Farage saying that 52/48 wouldn’t ben the end of it)
Democracy isn’t what one side says it is.
I didn't claim any second referendum would be anti-democratic. Learn to read bud.
Parliament chose to have a one off referendum, we knew this before the vote. Rees-Mogg said years before we could have a 3 way ballot, Cameron chose not to implement that. And as for Farage saying 52-48 wouldn't be the end of it, he can think that but I guarantee Cameron would have told him where to go.
And would Farage have listened? Or would he have carried on campaigning to leave?
What’s the difference between Farage continuing his battle after remain winning, or remainers carrying on the battle after leave winning? Exactly the same, right?
I wonder if Faragists would see themselves as antidemocratic? Or if they’d consider themselves as unaccepting of the result?
"I couldn't care less what Farage supporters say, I'd say the exact same thing to them which would be the same as the PM would've said. You know this, we all know this. I'm pretty fucking sure you'd have said the same as me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What vote didn’t I accept? When people throw this out. Do they mean: 1. Don't accept that Brexit has happend. 2. Don't accept that Brexit was a good idea. This is exactly it - I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t accept that leave won. Now just because leave won, does that mean we all have to fall in line and praise the wonderful Brexit project? And if we fail to do so we don’t accept the result? Because if that’s the case, there’s going to be a lot of Labour supporters on here after the next election. These are good points. We used to often see Brexiters saying “we won you lost get over it” by which they meant “can you stop criticising the thing I supported”. It really is quite silly. Why should anyone shut up about something they may feel passionate about? I kind of get some Brexiters feeling threatened by rejoin referendums being proposed. But criticising Brexit and pointing out issues or concerns that have arisen as a result of Brexit are as valid as supporters bringing up good news and wins. Fingers crossed the wins start to outweigh the losses. Until they do, then remainers may continue to be remoaners, and all power to them! " Yes, surely if they still believed Brexit was a good idea. They'd be more than happy to discuss it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What vote didn’t I accept? When people throw this out. Do they mean: 1. Don't accept that Brexit has happend. 2. Don't accept that Brexit was a good idea. This is exactly it - I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t accept that leave won. Now just because leave won, does that mean we all have to fall in line and praise the wonderful Brexit project? And if we fail to do so we don’t accept the result? Because if that’s the case, there’s going to be a lot of Labour supporters on here after the next election. These are good points. We used to often see Brexiters saying “we won you lost get over it” by which they meant “can you stop criticising the thing I supported”. It really is quite silly. Why should anyone shut up about something they may feel passionate about? I kind of get some Brexiters feeling threatened by rejoin referendums being proposed. But criticising Brexit and pointing out issues or concerns that have arisen as a result of Brexit are as valid as supporters bringing up good news and wins. Fingers crossed the wins start to outweigh the losses. Until they do, then remainers may continue to be remoaners, and all power to them! There should never have been campaigns for a second referendum, those are exactly what gives leave voters the ammo to say 'remoaners don't accept it'. It's funny you speak about being able to post bad, as much as leave voters can post good because I continued a thread on economy and jobs, not one person has stayed on topic, not even the person I was debating when the last thread ended
If Farage and Rees-Mogg hadn’t suggested second referendums, then maybe it wouldn’t have caught on
“Of course I don’t want one, we won a referendum and that should have been that. But I do not trust the sheer dishonesty of our political class,”
This Farage??
This one:
“Maybe, just maybe I’m reaching the point of thinking that we should have a second referendum … on EU membership,”
Rees-Mogg’s idea was actually the best though:
“Indeed, we could have two referendums…As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed.”
That was an eminently sensible proposal, I’m sure we’d all agree.
Nice way to take words out of context
Do you need some context? I'm sure you already know, don't you.
I lived and breathed every bit of Brexit from 2014-2020 (live tweeted most of Parliament TV at the height of it!) I’m good, thanks.
The point that we’re getting away from is that being anti-Brexit isn’t anti democratic. (Nor indeed was campaigning for a second referendum. Remember Farage saying that 52/48 wouldn’t be the end of it before the result came in).
If you try to make those who oppose you within lawful means to be anti-democratic, you’re being anti-democratic yourself.
If you know the context I'd urge you not to crop quotes and use them to try prove points. It's disingenuous at best.
The general point is that for you to claim that a second referendum would have been anti-democratic was incorrect. One could have been held happily, had parliament chosen to do so. I referenced Farage and Rees-Mogg whilst using a wee smiley face because I was being a touch cheeky - it’s amusing to use their quotes. (The best one is Farage saying that 52/48 wouldn’t ben the end of it)
Democracy isn’t what one side says it is.
I didn't claim any second referendum would be anti-democratic. Learn to read bud.
Parliament chose to have a one off referendum, we knew this before the vote. Rees-Mogg said years before we could have a 3 way ballot, Cameron chose not to implement that. And as for Farage saying 52-48 wouldn't be the end of it, he can think that but I guarantee Cameron would have told him where to go.
And would Farage have listened? Or would he have carried on campaigning to leave?
What’s the difference between Farage continuing his battle after remain winning, or remainers carrying on the battle after leave winning? Exactly the same, right?
I wonder if Faragists would see themselves as antidemocratic? Or if they’d consider themselves as unaccepting of the result?
I couldn't care less what Farage supporters say, I'd say the exact same thing to them which would be the same as the PM would've said.
You know this, we all know this. I'm pretty fucking sure you'd have said the same as me. "I’d accept Farage’s right to moan and campaign, for sure. That’s part of democracy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself. Yeah that sounds dodgy as fuck. Poor indictment of USA politics and judiciary. Regrettably you are right. But I think it’s indicative of a general failing in previously accepted norms across Western society. In the UK we have seen the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary, the state broadcaster, the failure of Remoaners to accept the 2016 referendum results. All of this completely undermines the trust that the population would once have had in our institutions to be fair and impartial. I moan about the Brexit referendum result. Vocally at first. But it is what it is now. I do not think we should reverse as we will never get such a sweet deal again. But moaning is permitted in a democracy so I do not see the harm? I think you were making an interesting point then undermined yourself by including a false equivalence and insulting language. You were doing quite well until then Rog
I think we're supposed to pretend that Brexit was a good idea. Don't ask any questions and don't point out any of the impacts that leaving the EU has had on the UK.
Most of us don't appreciate every issue no matter how unrelated to brexit is attributed to brexit by those who are not in favour of democracy.
You mean like this one which is about Trump?
Spot on, any opportunity to moan about brexit....
To be fair it was Rog who brought up Brexit (well “Remoaners”) so buck stops with him " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What vote didn’t I accept? When people throw this out. Do they mean: 1. Don't accept that Brexit has happend. 2. Don't accept that Brexit was a good idea. This is exactly it - I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t accept that leave won. Now just because leave won, does that mean we all have to fall in line and praise the wonderful Brexit project? And if we fail to do so we don’t accept the result? Because if that’s the case, there’s going to be a lot of Labour supporters on here after the next election. These are good points. We used to often see Brexiters saying “we won you lost get over it” by which they meant “can you stop criticising the thing I supported”. It really is quite silly. Why should anyone shut up about something they may feel passionate about? I kind of get some Brexiters feeling threatened by rejoin referendums being proposed. But criticising Brexit and pointing out issues or concerns that have arisen as a result of Brexit are as valid as supporters bringing up good news and wins. Fingers crossed the wins start to outweigh the losses. Until they do, then remainers may continue to be remoaners, and all power to them! There should never have been campaigns for a second referendum, those are exactly what gives leave voters the ammo to say 'remoaners don't accept it'. It's funny you speak about being able to post bad, as much as leave voters can post good because I continued a thread on economy and jobs, not one person has stayed on topic, not even the person I was debating when the last thread ended
If Farage and Rees-Mogg hadn’t suggested second referendums, then maybe it wouldn’t have caught on
“Of course I don’t want one, we won a referendum and that should have been that. But I do not trust the sheer dishonesty of our political class,”
This Farage??
This one:
“Maybe, just maybe I’m reaching the point of thinking that we should have a second referendum … on EU membership,”
Rees-Mogg’s idea was actually the best though:
“Indeed, we could have two referendums…As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed.”
That was an eminently sensible proposal, I’m sure we’d all agree.
Nice way to take words out of context
Do you need some context? I'm sure you already know, don't you.
I lived and breathed every bit of Brexit from 2014-2020 (live tweeted most of Parliament TV at the height of it!) I’m good, thanks.
The point that we’re getting away from is that being anti-Brexit isn’t anti democratic. (Nor indeed was campaigning for a second referendum. Remember Farage saying that 52/48 wouldn’t be the end of it before the result came in).
If you try to make those who oppose you within lawful means to be anti-democratic, you’re being anti-democratic yourself.
If you know the context I'd urge you not to crop quotes and use them to try prove points. It's disingenuous at best.
The general point is that for you to claim that a second referendum would have been anti-democratic was incorrect. One could have been held happily, had parliament chosen to do so. I referenced Farage and Rees-Mogg whilst using a wee smiley face because I was being a touch cheeky - it’s amusing to use their quotes. (The best one is Farage saying that 52/48 wouldn’t ben the end of it)
Democracy isn’t what one side says it is.
I didn't claim any second referendum would be anti-democratic. Learn to read bud.
Parliament chose to have a one off referendum, we knew this before the vote. Rees-Mogg said years before we could have a 3 way ballot, Cameron chose not to implement that. And as for Farage saying 52-48 wouldn't be the end of it, he can think that but I guarantee Cameron would have told him where to go.
And would Farage have listened? Or would he have carried on campaigning to leave?
What’s the difference between Farage continuing his battle after remain winning, or remainers carrying on the battle after leave winning? Exactly the same, right?
I wonder if Faragists would see themselves as antidemocratic? Or if they’d consider themselves as unaccepting of the result?
I couldn't care less what Farage supporters say, I'd say the exact same thing to them which would be the same as the PM would've said.
You know this, we all know this. I'm pretty fucking sure you'd have said the same as me.
I’d accept Farage’s right to moan and campaign, for sure. That’s part of democracy. "Pretty sure people accept other people's right to moan. Most leave voters I see say 'we won, get over it' are laughing at those moaning and actually revel in it. I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"American politics is a mystery to me at the best of times. I am still amazed someone can be up on charges going through several court cases and yet still be running for president. A quick question though on politicians character. If one of them is, shall we say lacking in morals in their personal life but is good at running the country and the other is perfect in their private life but rubbish at running the country, which would you prefer as leader? Hobson’s choice again. It shouldn’t be either or. But if that were the choice you were faced with, which would it be I don’t think in all conscience I could vote (or would protest vote). That is the problem with a binary system. Least bad option!!! In my opinion you cannot disaggregate personal behaviour from professional behaviour when you are in a public office role. So how do you feel about the DA responsible for prosecuting Trump in Georgia? Appointed her married lover as Trump prosecutor, paid him millions and he uses the money to pay for their holidays together behind his wife’s back. This sounds to me like she is “dodgy as fuck” and should probably be in jail herself. Yeah that sounds dodgy as fuck. Poor indictment of USA politics and judiciary. Regrettably you are right. But I think it’s indicative of a general failing in previously accepted norms across Western society. In the UK we have seen the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary, the state broadcaster, the failure of Remoaners to accept the 2016 referendum results. All of this completely undermines the trust that the population would once have had in our institutions to be fair and impartial. I moan about the Brexit referendum result. Vocally at first. But it is what it is now. I do not think we should reverse as we will never get such a sweet deal again. But moaning is permitted in a democracy so I do not see the harm? I think you were making an interesting point then undermined yourself by including a false equivalence and insulting language. You were doing quite well until then Rog
I hadn’t noticed you moaning about Brexit.
Not today no. But I have many times. But I am a pragmatist so much as I think Brexit was a stupid decision and on balance, while far from perfect, the UK was better in than out, I do not support rejoining (certainly not for a long time anyway).
Part of that is because the EU would never allow us to rejoin and stay out of Schengen or retain our sovereign currency. With the UK thorn now out of the Federalists side, closer EU integration is inevitable and that is not something I would support. Basically Brexit is the catalyst to enable much of the arguments put forward by Leave to come true (and they will say “see I told you so” even though the UK remaining would likely have stopped it).
Another part is that I truly want and hope the Leave supporters are right and the UK will flourish and we will all be better off because of it. I’m a big boy (stop sniggering at the back) and happy to concede if I am proving wrong about my Brexit fears.
The final part is that I like winding up Brexiters because they are so easily triggered. Childish I know, but life gets too heavy sometimes!
If I were to look at EU membership from purely an economic perspective, which I know Remoaners have to, then I’d be perfectly happy to be proven wrong.
If eurozone growth were running at 10% and we were bungling along at next to zero I’d say well yes let’s monitor this situation over a decade or so and see if we have made a mistake.
But that isn’t the case. The EU is as stagnant as ever and has made some appalling decisions around energy and net zero policies, with its German engine room looking like a total basket case.
My view at the time and now is the same. Europe generally is a declining part of the global economy and the UK’s only means of not declining with it is to detach ourselves.
Oddly if the EU is performing badly economically (as it is) there is no point joining it, and if it’s performing really well we probably wouldn’t want to join on their terms."But Rog we are virtually always told by Brexiters that it wasn’t about economics. And I agree. There was more to being in the EU than just our economies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. " And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? " Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously "Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted "Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
"Further, someone saying 'you can't accept democracy' on an online platform really isn't trying to stop someone having a whinge. If you think it is, it would explain why your reality is distorted. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
"I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes. The fact that you’re not says much about you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you."What is an “actual Nazi” and how do you propose to ban them? What action do you suggest the UK takes if “actual Nazis” get elected or otherwise take power? Does this just apply to European countries or to places like China, Myanmar, Sudan etc? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you."I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
What is an “actual Nazi” and how do you propose to ban them? What action do you suggest the UK takes if “actual Nazis” get elected or otherwise take power?
Does this just apply to European countries or to places like China, Myanmar, Sudan etc? "Well we already have the power to proscribe groups, and have done so in recent years. We can also refuse policial parties paperwork, and have done so recently (usually for admin mess ups, but there are rules to follow) Since you’re here, I’ll ask you the same hypothetical: if a Neo-Nazi party were elected in the U.K, with their leadership espousing views on repatriating legal citizens of foreign birth, what would you do? Would you accept it as part of democracy? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis. "Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated? "Is that a rhetorical question? I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK. "I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be. Should we have no proscribed groups at all? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
So this fella Trump. A good or a bad person? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all? "We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
What is an “actual Nazi” and how do you propose to ban them? What action do you suggest the UK takes if “actual Nazis” get elected or otherwise take power?
Does this just apply to European countries or to places like China, Myanmar, Sudan etc?
Well we already have the power to proscribe groups, and have done so in recent years. We can also refuse policial parties paperwork, and have done so recently (usually for admin mess ups, but there are rules to follow)
Since you’re here, I’ll ask you the same hypothetical:
if a Neo-Nazi party were elected in the U.K, with their leadership espousing views on repatriating legal citizens of foreign birth, what would you do? Would you accept it as part of democracy? "Yes I would accept it, if that is the democratic will of the population. The worst race baiters that we have in this country at the moment are people like the SNP, Sadiq Khan, various people in the Labour Party. I find their views repulsive. Should we ban them? No I don’t think so. Sooner or later they will be found out, as the SNP have been. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do. "No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt. We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them. It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
What is an “actual Nazi” and how do you propose to ban them? What action do you suggest the UK takes if “actual Nazis” get elected or otherwise take power?
Does this just apply to European countries or to places like China, Myanmar, Sudan etc?
Well we already have the power to proscribe groups, and have done so in recent years. We can also refuse policial parties paperwork, and have done so recently (usually for admin mess ups, but there are rules to follow)
Since you’re here, I’ll ask you the same hypothetical:
if a Neo-Nazi party were elected in the U.K, with their leadership espousing views on repatriating legal citizens of foreign birth, what would you do? Would you accept it as part of democracy?
Yes I would accept it, if that is the democratic will of the population. The worst race baiters that we have in this country at the moment are people like the SNP, Sadiq Khan, various people in the Labour Party. I find their views repulsive. Should we ban them? No I don’t think so. Sooner or later they will be found out, as the SNP have been. "You’d accept a party that introduced ethnic cleansing? Wow. At least you’re honest. I’m done with you here, I don’t want to engage with anyone so spineless, and frankly terrifyingly naive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do.
No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt.
We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them.
It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again. "I can't speak about the Nazis because obviously I wasn't alive but I can confidently say that in both the other cases, the other sides, rather than educate, reason and inform went for 'you're thick and we know better'. That's the main problem with society today, people don't know how to debate, as you've just shown towards Roger. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
What is an “actual Nazi” and how do you propose to ban them? What action do you suggest the UK takes if “actual Nazis” get elected or otherwise take power?
Does this just apply to European countries or to places like China, Myanmar, Sudan etc?
Well we already have the power to proscribe groups, and have done so in recent years. We can also refuse policial parties paperwork, and have done so recently (usually for admin mess ups, but there are rules to follow)
Since you’re here, I’ll ask you the same hypothetical:
if a Neo-Nazi party were elected in the U.K, with their leadership espousing views on repatriating legal citizens of foreign birth, what would you do? Would you accept it as part of democracy?
Yes I would accept it, if that is the democratic will of the population. The worst race baiters that we have in this country at the moment are people like the SNP, Sadiq Khan, various people in the Labour Party. I find their views repulsive. Should we ban them? No I don’t think so. Sooner or later they will be found out, as the SNP have been.
You’d accept a party that introduced ethnic cleansing? Wow.
At least you’re honest.
I’m done with you here, I don’t want to engage with anyone so spineless, and frankly terrifyingly naive."I don’t really care whether you are “done with me here” or not. Frankly it is irrelevant to me whether you engage with my posts. I haven’t seen anything that you have posted yet that I would regard as even remotely interesting or suggest you are capable of original thought. As with all leftists you hide your own burning intolerance and authoritarianism under some kind of faux liberalism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do.
No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt.
We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them.
It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again.
I can't speak about the Nazis because obviously I wasn't alive but I can confidently say that in both the other cases, the other sides, rather than educate, reason and inform went for 'you're thick and we know better'. That's the main problem with society today, people don't know how to debate, as you've just shown towards Roger. "Not debating with someone who’d accept a neo-Nazi govt. with a shrug isn’t about not knowing how to debate, it’s about knowing when it’s worth debating and when you’re wasting your time. I won’t debate with racists or those who accept racism so casually and without regard. Soz. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do.
No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt.
We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them.
It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again.
I can't speak about the Nazis because obviously I wasn't alive but I can confidently say that in both the other cases, the other sides, rather than educate, reason and inform went for 'you're thick and we know better'. That's the main problem with society today, people don't know how to debate, as you've just shown towards Roger.
Not debating with someone who’d accept a neo-Nazi govt. with a shrug isn’t about not knowing how to debate, it’s about knowing when it’s worth debating and when you’re wasting your time.
I won’t debate with racists or those who accept racism so casually and without regard. Soz.
"Rhenium you're gonna be forever stuck in your echo chamber. That's not the way to progress. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do.
No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt.
We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them.
It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again.
I can't speak about the Nazis because obviously I wasn't alive but I can confidently say that in both the other cases, the other sides, rather than educate, reason and inform went for 'you're thick and we know better'. That's the main problem with society today, people don't know how to debate, as you've just shown towards Roger.
Not debating with someone who’d accept a neo-Nazi govt. with a shrug isn’t about not knowing how to debate, it’s about knowing when it’s worth debating and when you’re wasting your time.
I won’t debate with racists or those who accept racism so casually and without regard. Soz.
Rhenium you're gonna be forever stuck in your echo chamber. That's not the way to progress. "It’s not an echo chamber to draw a line at a certain extreme of debate. By debating someone, you’re giving credence to their views. I won’t debate a flat earther on the solar system. I won’t debate a Nazi on social construct. I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do.
No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt.
We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them.
It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again.
I can't speak about the Nazis because obviously I wasn't alive but I can confidently say that in both the other cases, the other sides, rather than educate, reason and inform went for 'you're thick and we know better'. That's the main problem with society today, people don't know how to debate, as you've just shown towards Roger.
Not debating with someone who’d accept a neo-Nazi govt. with a shrug isn’t about not knowing how to debate, it’s about knowing when it’s worth debating and when you’re wasting your time.
I won’t debate with racists or those who accept racism so casually and without regard. Soz.
Rhenium you're gonna be forever stuck in your echo chamber. That's not the way to progress.
It’s not an echo chamber to draw a line at a certain extreme of debate. By debating someone, you’re giving credence to their views. I won’t debate a flat earther on the solar system. I won’t debate a Nazi on social construct.
I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss. "This is the problem, it appears you aren't listening. You've decided that Roger is a fascist because he will accept a democratically elected party, and so wish to shut him up. That is the liberal behaviour we've come to understand, and its so fucking far from what being a liberal should mean. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do.
No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt.
We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them.
It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again.
I can't speak about the Nazis because obviously I wasn't alive but I can confidently say that in both the other cases, the other sides, rather than educate, reason and inform went for 'you're thick and we know better'. That's the main problem with society today, people don't know how to debate, as you've just shown towards Roger.
Not debating with someone who’d accept a neo-Nazi govt. with a shrug isn’t about not knowing how to debate, it’s about knowing when it’s worth debating and when you’re wasting your time.
I won’t debate with racists or those who accept racism so casually and without regard. Soz.
Rhenium you're gonna be forever stuck in your echo chamber. That's not the way to progress.
It’s not an echo chamber to draw a line at a certain extreme of debate. By debating someone, you’re giving credence to their views. I won’t debate a flat earther on the solar system. I won’t debate a Nazi on social construct.
I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss.
This is the problem, it appears you aren't listening.
You've decided that Roger is a fascist because he will accept a democratically elected party, and so wish to shut him up. That is the liberal behaviour we've come to understand, and its so fucking far from what being a liberal should mean. "I didn’t say Roger was a fascist. At no point did I say that - that’s your interpretation of my words. Roger said himself that he would be accepting of a fascist government. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do.
No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt.
We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them.
It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again.
I can't speak about the Nazis because obviously I wasn't alive but I can confidently say that in both the other cases, the other sides, rather than educate, reason and inform went for 'you're thick and we know better'. That's the main problem with society today, people don't know how to debate, as you've just shown towards Roger.
Not debating with someone who’d accept a neo-Nazi govt. with a shrug isn’t about not knowing how to debate, it’s about knowing when it’s worth debating and when you’re wasting your time.
I won’t debate with racists or those who accept racism so casually and without regard. Soz.
Rhenium you're gonna be forever stuck in your echo chamber. That's not the way to progress.
It’s not an echo chamber to draw a line at a certain extreme of debate. By debating someone, you’re giving credence to their views. I won’t debate a flat earther on the solar system. I won’t debate a Nazi on social construct.
I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss. "You have made up an out the blue left field scenario, spouted it out for reaction, you get an answer and then go off on one to prove a point that didn't exist. Strange....... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do.
No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt.
We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them.
It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again.
I can't speak about the Nazis because obviously I wasn't alive but I can confidently say that in both the other cases, the other sides, rather than educate, reason and inform went for 'you're thick and we know better'. That's the main problem with society today, people don't know how to debate, as you've just shown towards Roger.
Not debating with someone who’d accept a neo-Nazi govt. with a shrug isn’t about not knowing how to debate, it’s about knowing when it’s worth debating and when you’re wasting your time.
I won’t debate with racists or those who accept racism so casually and without regard. Soz.
Rhenium you're gonna be forever stuck in your echo chamber. That's not the way to progress.
It’s not an echo chamber to draw a line at a certain extreme of debate. By debating someone, you’re giving credence to their views. I won’t debate a flat earther on the solar system. I won’t debate a Nazi on social construct.
I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss.
You have made up an out the blue left field scenario, spouted it out for reaction, you get an answer and then go off on one to prove a point that didn't exist.
Strange....... "Is it out of the blue to debate the potential end game for accepting extremist views in mainstream politics? Why else do the people espousing these views attempt to get involved In politics, if not to sway those in power to their viewpoint, and potentially take sole power for themselves? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do.
No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt.
We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them.
It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again.
I can't speak about the Nazis because obviously I wasn't alive but I can confidently say that in both the other cases, the other sides, rather than educate, reason and inform went for 'you're thick and we know better'. That's the main problem with society today, people don't know how to debate, as you've just shown towards Roger.
Not debating with someone who’d accept a neo-Nazi govt. with a shrug isn’t about not knowing how to debate, it’s about knowing when it’s worth debating and when you’re wasting your time.
I won’t debate with racists or those who accept racism so casually and without regard. Soz.
Rhenium you're gonna be forever stuck in your echo chamber. That's not the way to progress.
It’s not an echo chamber to draw a line at a certain extreme of debate. By debating someone, you’re giving credence to their views. I won’t debate a flat earther on the solar system. I won’t debate a Nazi on social construct.
I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss.
You have made up an out the blue left field scenario, spouted it out for reaction, you get an answer and then go off on one to prove a point that didn't exist.
Strange....... "Oh by the way, I accept your apology for suggesting that I’m anti-democratic earlier | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do.
No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt.
We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them.
It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again.
I can't speak about the Nazis because obviously I wasn't alive but I can confidently say that in both the other cases, the other sides, rather than educate, reason and inform went for 'you're thick and we know better'. That's the main problem with society today, people don't know how to debate, as you've just shown towards Roger.
Not debating with someone who’d accept a neo-Nazi govt. with a shrug isn’t about not knowing how to debate, it’s about knowing when it’s worth debating and when you’re wasting your time.
I won’t debate with racists or those who accept racism so casually and without regard. Soz.
Rhenium you're gonna be forever stuck in your echo chamber. That's not the way to progress.
It’s not an echo chamber to draw a line at a certain extreme of debate. By debating someone, you’re giving credence to their views. I won’t debate a flat earther on the solar system. I won’t debate a Nazi on social construct.
I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss.
This is the problem, it appears you aren't listening.
You've decided that Roger is a fascist because he will accept a democratically elected party, and so wish to shut him up. That is the liberal behaviour we've come to understand, and its so fucking far from what being a liberal should mean.
I didn’t say Roger was a fascist. At no point did I say that - that’s your interpretation of my words.
Roger said himself that he would be accepting of a fascist government."You said "I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss." This was after telling Roger you were done with him. I'm not surprised by your outburst but calling people fascists, nazis, racist is exactly why we must not go round banning people because someone decides they are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do.
No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt.
We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them.
It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again.
I can't speak about the Nazis because obviously I wasn't alive but I can confidently say that in both the other cases, the other sides, rather than educate, reason and inform went for 'you're thick and we know better'. That's the main problem with society today, people don't know how to debate, as you've just shown towards Roger.
Not debating with someone who’d accept a neo-Nazi govt. with a shrug isn’t about not knowing how to debate, it’s about knowing when it’s worth debating and when you’re wasting your time.
I won’t debate with racists or those who accept racism so casually and without regard. Soz.
Rhenium you're gonna be forever stuck in your echo chamber. That's not the way to progress.
It’s not an echo chamber to draw a line at a certain extreme of debate. By debating someone, you’re giving credence to their views. I won’t debate a flat earther on the solar system. I won’t debate a Nazi on social construct.
I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss.
This is the problem, it appears you aren't listening.
You've decided that Roger is a fascist because he will accept a democratically elected party, and so wish to shut him up. That is the liberal behaviour we've come to understand, and its so fucking far from what being a liberal should mean.
I didn’t say Roger was a fascist. At no point did I say that - that’s your interpretation of my words.
Roger said himself that he would be accepting of a fascist government.
You said "I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss."
"Thanks for confirming that I didn’t call Roger a fascist, and it was in fact your misunderstanding
I’m absolutely certain that Ruger isn’t a fascist, though he is obviously more accepting of fascism than I (or I would hope, most people) am. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do.
No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt.
We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them.
It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again.
I can't speak about the Nazis because obviously I wasn't alive but I can confidently say that in both the other cases, the other sides, rather than educate, reason and inform went for 'you're thick and we know better'. That's the main problem with society today, people don't know how to debate, as you've just shown towards Roger.
Not debating with someone who’d accept a neo-Nazi govt. with a shrug isn’t about not knowing how to debate, it’s about knowing when it’s worth debating and when you’re wasting your time.
I won’t debate with racists or those who accept racism so casually and without regard. Soz.
Rhenium you're gonna be forever stuck in your echo chamber. That's not the way to progress.
It’s not an echo chamber to draw a line at a certain extreme of debate. By debating someone, you’re giving credence to their views. I won’t debate a flat earther on the solar system. I won’t debate a Nazi on social construct.
I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss.
This is the problem, it appears you aren't listening.
You've decided that Roger is a fascist because he will accept a democratically elected party, and so wish to shut him up. That is the liberal behaviour we've come to understand, and its so fucking far from what being a liberal should mean.
I didn’t say Roger was a fascist. At no point did I say that - that’s your interpretation of my words.
Roger said himself that he would be accepting of a fascist government.
You said "I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss."
Thanks for confirming that I didn’t call Roger a fascist, and it was in fact your misunderstanding
I’m absolutely certain that Ruger isn’t a fascist, though he is obviously more accepting of fascism than I (or I would hope, most people) am."I think you're confused mate. You definitely said you weren't willing to debate fascists after telling Roger you were done with him. What the fascination with being right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do.
No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt.
We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them.
It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again.
I can't speak about the Nazis because obviously I wasn't alive but I can confidently say that in both the other cases, the other sides, rather than educate, reason and inform went for 'you're thick and we know better'. That's the main problem with society today, people don't know how to debate, as you've just shown towards Roger.
Not debating with someone who’d accept a neo-Nazi govt. with a shrug isn’t about not knowing how to debate, it’s about knowing when it’s worth debating and when you’re wasting your time.
I won’t debate with racists or those who accept racism so casually and without regard. Soz.
Rhenium you're gonna be forever stuck in your echo chamber. That's not the way to progress.
It’s not an echo chamber to draw a line at a certain extreme of debate. By debating someone, you’re giving credence to their views. I won’t debate a flat earther on the solar system. I won’t debate a Nazi on social construct.
I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss.
This is the problem, it appears you aren't listening.
You've decided that Roger is a fascist because he will accept a democratically elected party, and so wish to shut him up. That is the liberal behaviour we've come to understand, and its so fucking far from what being a liberal should mean.
I didn’t say Roger was a fascist. At no point did I say that - that’s your interpretation of my words.
Roger said himself that he would be accepting of a fascist government.
You said "I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss."
Thanks for confirming that I didn’t call Roger a fascist, and it was in fact your misunderstanding
I’m absolutely certain that Ruger isn’t a fascist, though he is obviously more accepting of fascism than I (or I would hope, most people) am.
I think you're confused mate. You definitely said you weren't willing to debate fascists after telling Roger you were done with him.
What the fascination with being right?"You do have a weird habit of telling people what they meant when they wrote it, and you didn’t. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do.
No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt.
We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them.
It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again.
I can't speak about the Nazis because obviously I wasn't alive but I can confidently say that in both the other cases, the other sides, rather than educate, reason and inform went for 'you're thick and we know better'. That's the main problem with society today, people don't know how to debate, as you've just shown towards Roger.
Not debating with someone who’d accept a neo-Nazi govt. with a shrug isn’t about not knowing how to debate, it’s about knowing when it’s worth debating and when you’re wasting your time.
I won’t debate with racists or those who accept racism so casually and without regard. Soz.
Rhenium you're gonna be forever stuck in your echo chamber. That's not the way to progress.
It’s not an echo chamber to draw a line at a certain extreme of debate. By debating someone, you’re giving credence to their views. I won’t debate a flat earther on the solar system. I won’t debate a Nazi on social construct.
I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss.
This is the problem, it appears you aren't listening.
You've decided that Roger is a fascist because he will accept a democratically elected party, and so wish to shut him up. That is the liberal behaviour we've come to understand, and its so fucking far from what being a liberal should mean.
I didn’t say Roger was a fascist. At no point did I say that - that’s your interpretation of my words.
Roger said himself that he would be accepting of a fascist government.
You said "I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss."
Thanks for confirming that I didn’t call Roger a fascist, and it was in fact your misunderstanding
I’m absolutely certain that Ruger isn’t a fascist, though he is obviously more accepting of fascism than I (or I would hope, most people) am.
I think you're confused mate. You definitely said you weren't willing to debate fascists after telling Roger you were done with him.
What the fascination with being right?
You do have a weird habit of telling people what they meant when they wrote it, and you didn’t.
"I have this weird habit of reading what's written and taking it at face value. You should try it sometime | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do.
No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt.
We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them.
It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again.
I can't speak about the Nazis because obviously I wasn't alive but I can confidently say that in both the other cases, the other sides, rather than educate, reason and inform went for 'you're thick and we know better'. That's the main problem with society today, people don't know how to debate, as you've just shown towards Roger.
Not debating with someone who’d accept a neo-Nazi govt. with a shrug isn’t about not knowing how to debate, it’s about knowing when it’s worth debating and when you’re wasting your time.
I won’t debate with racists or those who accept racism so casually and without regard. Soz.
Rhenium you're gonna be forever stuck in your echo chamber. That's not the way to progress.
It’s not an echo chamber to draw a line at a certain extreme of debate. By debating someone, you’re giving credence to their views. I won’t debate a flat earther on the solar system. I won’t debate a Nazi on social construct.
I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss.
This is the problem, it appears you aren't listening.
You've decided that Roger is a fascist because he will accept a democratically elected party, and so wish to shut him up. That is the liberal behaviour we've come to understand, and its so fucking far from what being a liberal should mean.
I didn’t say Roger was a fascist. At no point did I say that - that’s your interpretation of my words.
Roger said himself that he would be accepting of a fascist government.
You said "I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss."
Thanks for confirming that I didn’t call Roger a fascist, and it was in fact your misunderstanding
I’m absolutely certain that Ruger isn’t a fascist, though he is obviously more accepting of fascism than I (or I would hope, most people) am."I’m not really sure what being “accepting” of fascism or not (ignoring how you define fascism) means exactly. If I don’t “accept” the result of a democratic election, what action should I take? Should I write to someone maybe with some angry words and expect them to unravel the election results somehow? Who should I write to? Who has the power to cancel elections in the UK? Do you “accept” the SNP’s race baiting? Do you “accept” what is happening in China, Myanmar, Syria, Sudan, Israel, Gaza? If you don’t “accept” it, what action have you taken and what was the result? Have you been to Beijing to protest lately? Or to Tel Aviv? Have you written angrily to Hamza Yousuf demanding that he stop being such a racist? If you have done nothing about any of these things, except rant in some incoherent fashion on the politics forum of a swingers website, then it seems that your concept of “acceptance” is pretty meaningless. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do.
No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt.
We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them.
It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again.
I can't speak about the Nazis because obviously I wasn't alive but I can confidently say that in both the other cases, the other sides, rather than educate, reason and inform went for 'you're thick and we know better'. That's the main problem with society today, people don't know how to debate, as you've just shown towards Roger.
Not debating with someone who’d accept a neo-Nazi govt. with a shrug isn’t about not knowing how to debate, it’s about knowing when it’s worth debating and when you’re wasting your time.
I won’t debate with racists or those who accept racism so casually and without regard. Soz.
Rhenium you're gonna be forever stuck in your echo chamber. That's not the way to progress.
It’s not an echo chamber to draw a line at a certain extreme of debate. By debating someone, you’re giving credence to their views. I won’t debate a flat earther on the solar system. I won’t debate a Nazi on social construct.
I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss.
This is the problem, it appears you aren't listening.
You've decided that Roger is a fascist because he will accept a democratically elected party, and so wish to shut him up. That is the liberal behaviour we've come to understand, and its so fucking far from what being a liberal should mean.
I didn’t say Roger was a fascist. At no point did I say that - that’s your interpretation of my words.
Roger said himself that he would be accepting of a fascist government.
You said "I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss."
Thanks for confirming that I didn’t call Roger a fascist, and it was in fact your misunderstanding
I’m absolutely certain that Ruger isn’t a fascist, though he is obviously more accepting of fascism than I (or I would hope, most people) am.
I think you're confused mate. You definitely said you weren't willing to debate fascists after telling Roger you were done with him.
What the fascination with being right?
You do have a weird habit of telling people what they meant when they wrote it, and you didn’t.
I have this weird habit of reading what's written and taking it at face value.
You should try it sometime "I won’t debate with fascists + I won’t debate with Roger does not = Roger is a fascist. I also said I won’t debate with flat earthers. Does that mean all flat earther’s are fascists? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do.
No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt.
We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them.
It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again.
I can't speak about the Nazis because obviously I wasn't alive but I can confidently say that in both the other cases, the other sides, rather than educate, reason and inform went for 'you're thick and we know better'. That's the main problem with society today, people don't know how to debate, as you've just shown towards Roger.
Not debating with someone who’d accept a neo-Nazi govt. with a shrug isn’t about not knowing how to debate, it’s about knowing when it’s worth debating and when you’re wasting your time.
I won’t debate with racists or those who accept racism so casually and without regard. Soz.
Rhenium you're gonna be forever stuck in your echo chamber. That's not the way to progress.
It’s not an echo chamber to draw a line at a certain extreme of debate. By debating someone, you’re giving credence to their views. I won’t debate a flat earther on the solar system. I won’t debate a Nazi on social construct.
I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss.
This is the problem, it appears you aren't listening.
You've decided that Roger is a fascist because he will accept a democratically elected party, and so wish to shut him up. That is the liberal behaviour we've come to understand, and its so fucking far from what being a liberal should mean.
I didn’t say Roger was a fascist. At no point did I say that - that’s your interpretation of my words.
Roger said himself that he would be accepting of a fascist government.
You said "I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss."
Thanks for confirming that I didn’t call Roger a fascist, and it was in fact your misunderstanding
I’m absolutely certain that Ruger isn’t a fascist, though he is obviously more accepting of fascism than I (or I would hope, most people) am.
I think you're confused mate. You definitely said you weren't willing to debate fascists after telling Roger you were done with him.
What the fascination with being right?
You do have a weird habit of telling people what they meant when they wrote it, and you didn’t.
I have this weird habit of reading what's written and taking it at face value.
You should try it sometime
I won’t debate with fascists + I won’t debate with Roger does not = Roger is a fascist.
I also said I won’t debate with flat earthers. Does that mean all flat earther’s are fascists? "You really should read exactly what you wrote. If you meant something else then you should be clear when writing, when something is in black and white, its very hard to come back from that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyway more news... The UK along with other countries vote against a yearly UN resolution to ban the glorification of Nazism.... "Now that is interesting. Would like to know more on that. Any link or specific search phrase I can use? Ta | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyway more news... The UK along with other countries vote against a yearly UN resolution to ban the glorification of Nazism....
Now that is interesting. Would like to know more on that. Any link or specific search phrase I can use? Ta"https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2022/11/09/why-france-and-51-other-countries-voted-against-the-un-resolution-condemning-nazism_6003471_8.html | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyway more news... The UK along with other countries vote against a yearly UN resolution to ban the glorification of Nazism....
Now that is interesting. Would like to know more on that. Any link or specific search phrase I can use? Ta
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2022/11/09/why-france-and-51-other-countries-voted-against-the-un-resolution-condemning-nazism_6003471_8.html" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do.
No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt.
We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them.
It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again.
I can't speak about the Nazis because obviously I wasn't alive but I can confidently say that in both the other cases, the other sides, rather than educate, reason and inform went for 'you're thick and we know better'. That's the main problem with society today, people don't know how to debate, as you've just shown towards Roger.
Not debating with someone who’d accept a neo-Nazi govt. with a shrug isn’t about not knowing how to debate, it’s about knowing when it’s worth debating and when you’re wasting your time.
I won’t debate with racists or those who accept racism so casually and without regard. Soz.
Rhenium you're gonna be forever stuck in your echo chamber. That's not the way to progress.
It’s not an echo chamber to draw a line at a certain extreme of debate. By debating someone, you’re giving credence to their views. I won’t debate a flat earther on the solar system. I won’t debate a Nazi on social construct.
I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss.
This is the problem, it appears you aren't listening.
You've decided that Roger is a fascist because he will accept a democratically elected party, and so wish to shut him up. That is the liberal behaviour we've come to understand, and its so fucking far from what being a liberal should mean.
I didn’t say Roger was a fascist. At no point did I say that - that’s your interpretation of my words.
Roger said himself that he would be accepting of a fascist government.
You said "I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss."
Thanks for confirming that I didn’t call Roger a fascist, and it was in fact your misunderstanding
I’m absolutely certain that Ruger isn’t a fascist, though he is obviously more accepting of fascism than I (or I would hope, most people) am.
I think you're confused mate. You definitely said you weren't willing to debate fascists after telling Roger you were done with him.
What the fascination with being right?
You do have a weird habit of telling people what they meant when they wrote it, and you didn’t.
I have this weird habit of reading what's written and taking it at face value.
You should try it sometime
I won’t debate with fascists + I won’t debate with Roger does not = Roger is a fascist.
I also said I won’t debate with flat earthers. Does that mean all flat earther’s are fascists?
You really should read exactly what you wrote. If you meant something else then you should be clear when writing, when something is in black and white, its very hard to come back from that. "You accuse me of always wanting to be right, whilst also disputing what I was thinking when I wrote something. You’re hilarious. Please never change | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do.
No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt.
We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them.
It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again.
I can't speak about the Nazis because obviously I wasn't alive but I can confidently say that in both the other cases, the other sides, rather than educate, reason and inform went for 'you're thick and we know better'. That's the main problem with society today, people don't know how to debate, as you've just shown towards Roger.
Not debating with someone who’d accept a neo-Nazi govt. with a shrug isn’t about not knowing how to debate, it’s about knowing when it’s worth debating and when you’re wasting your time.
I won’t debate with racists or those who accept racism so casually and without regard. Soz.
Rhenium you're gonna be forever stuck in your echo chamber. That's not the way to progress.
It’s not an echo chamber to draw a line at a certain extreme of debate. By debating someone, you’re giving credence to their views. I won’t debate a flat earther on the solar system. I won’t debate a Nazi on social construct.
I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss.
This is the problem, it appears you aren't listening.
You've decided that Roger is a fascist because he will accept a democratically elected party, and so wish to shut him up. That is the liberal behaviour we've come to understand, and its so fucking far from what being a liberal should mean.
I didn’t say Roger was a fascist. At no point did I say that - that’s your interpretation of my words.
Roger said himself that he would be accepting of a fascist government.
You said "I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss."
Thanks for confirming that I didn’t call Roger a fascist, and it was in fact your misunderstanding
I’m absolutely certain that Ruger isn’t a fascist, though he is obviously more accepting of fascism than I (or I would hope, most people) am.
I think you're confused mate. You definitely said you weren't willing to debate fascists after telling Roger you were done with him.
What the fascination with being right?
You do have a weird habit of telling people what they meant when they wrote it, and you didn’t.
I have this weird habit of reading what's written and taking it at face value.
You should try it sometime
I won’t debate with fascists + I won’t debate with Roger does not = Roger is a fascist.
I also said I won’t debate with flat earthers. Does that mean all flat earther’s are fascists?
You really should read exactly what you wrote. If you meant something else then you should be clear when writing, when something is in black and white, its very hard to come back from that.
You accuse me of always wanting to be right, whilst also disputing what I was thinking when I wrote something. You’re hilarious. Please never change "As I've said, read exactly what you wrote and if you're willing to see it, you'll understand how I break it down and come to the conclusion I did. I'll give you a clue ?? Speaking of flat earthers, you add a qualifier. Speaking of Nazis, you add a qualifier. Speaking of Conservatives (Roger), you're good with them but not fascists. It doesn't even take good reading comprehension to understand any of this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do.
No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt.
We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them.
It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again.
I can't speak about the Nazis because obviously I wasn't alive but I can confidently say that in both the other cases, the other sides, rather than educate, reason and inform went for 'you're thick and we know better'. That's the main problem with society today, people don't know how to debate, as you've just shown towards Roger.
Not debating with someone who’d accept a neo-Nazi govt. with a shrug isn’t about not knowing how to debate, it’s about knowing when it’s worth debating and when you’re wasting your time.
I won’t debate with racists or those who accept racism so casually and without regard. Soz.
Rhenium you're gonna be forever stuck in your echo chamber. That's not the way to progress.
It’s not an echo chamber to draw a line at a certain extreme of debate. By debating someone, you’re giving credence to their views. I won’t debate a flat earther on the solar system. I won’t debate a Nazi on social construct.
I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss.
This is the problem, it appears you aren't listening.
You've decided that Roger is a fascist because he will accept a democratically elected party, and so wish to shut him up. That is the liberal behaviour we've come to understand, and its so fucking far from what being a liberal should mean.
I didn’t say Roger was a fascist. At no point did I say that - that’s your interpretation of my words.
Roger said himself that he would be accepting of a fascist government.
You said "I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss."
Thanks for confirming that I didn’t call Roger a fascist, and it was in fact your misunderstanding
I’m absolutely certain that Ruger isn’t a fascist, though he is obviously more accepting of fascism than I (or I would hope, most people) am.
I think you're confused mate. You definitely said you weren't willing to debate fascists after telling Roger you were done with him.
What the fascination with being right?
You do have a weird habit of telling people what they meant when they wrote it, and you didn’t.
I have this weird habit of reading what's written and taking it at face value.
You should try it sometime
I won’t debate with fascists + I won’t debate with Roger does not = Roger is a fascist.
I also said I won’t debate with flat earthers. Does that mean all flat earther’s are fascists?
You really should read exactly what you wrote. If you meant something else then you should be clear when writing, when something is in black and white, its very hard to come back from that.
You accuse me of always wanting to be right, whilst also disputing what I was thinking when I wrote something. You’re hilarious. Please never change
As I've said, read exactly what you wrote and if you're willing to see it, you'll understand how I break it down and come to the conclusion I did.
I'll give you a clue ??
Speaking of flat earthers, you add a qualifier. Speaking of Nazis, you add a qualifier. Speaking of Conservatives (Roger), you're good with them but not fascists.
It doesn't even take good reading comprehension to understand any of this. "And for you, I'll never change  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I'm not sure anyone has actually tried to stop someone from having a whinge. And yet some make apparently serious comments about not accepting democracy. What is that if not an effort to shut down discussion? Plenty of people from all walks try to shut down discussion. You are within your rights to ignore them. You don't need to take them seriously
Ah, so your earlier point was incorrect. Noted
Mate, you're in favour of banning people who you believe to be 'dangerous' or have certain ideologies. I don't think you're in a position to moan this.
I’m in favour of banning *actual Nazis* from positions of power, yes.
The fact that you’re not says much about you.
I'm in favour of education so people don't fall into traps, I'm not in favour of banning people based on someone's say so that they're Nazis.
Germany has a neo-Nazi problem. Are their citizens not educated?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I don't know ow how many times I need to say it, and history proves me right. PROHIBITION DOESNT WORK.
I’m just asking why you think education is the only answer, when it appears not to be.
Should we have no proscribed groups at all?
We can have proscribed groups if you like, it doesn't make them go away though. They go underground and either get stronger or worse offsprings happen. You know this as well as I do.
No it doesn’t make them go away, but it does prevent them ever attaining the actual power to do anything beyond small scale hurt.
We have evidence throughout history that through rhetoric, a charismatic leader and a disgruntled public, a nation can choose to do the unthinkable. Be it Germany in 1933, Trump, or yes, Brexit. Not all those things are the same of course, but in all them, the public didn’t respond to logic or in cases decency. The public’s education wasn’t enough to prevent an outcome which harmed them.
It can happen. It has happened. It will happen again.
I can't speak about the Nazis because obviously I wasn't alive but I can confidently say that in both the other cases, the other sides, rather than educate, reason and inform went for 'you're thick and we know better'. That's the main problem with society today, people don't know how to debate, as you've just shown towards Roger.
Not debating with someone who’d accept a neo-Nazi govt. with a shrug isn’t about not knowing how to debate, it’s about knowing when it’s worth debating and when you’re wasting your time.
I won’t debate with racists or those who accept racism so casually and without regard. Soz.
Rhenium you're gonna be forever stuck in your echo chamber. That's not the way to progress.
It’s not an echo chamber to draw a line at a certain extreme of debate. By debating someone, you’re giving credence to their views. I won’t debate a flat earther on the solar system. I won’t debate a Nazi on social construct.
I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss.
This is the problem, it appears you aren't listening.
You've decided that Roger is a fascist because he will accept a democratically elected party, and so wish to shut him up. That is the liberal behaviour we've come to understand, and its so fucking far from what being a liberal should mean.
I didn’t say Roger was a fascist. At no point did I say that - that’s your interpretation of my words.
Roger said himself that he would be accepting of a fascist government.
You said "I am happy to debate with conservatives whose views diametrically oppose mine. But not fascists, who frankly aren’t worth the steam off my piss."
Thanks for confirming that I didn’t call Roger a fascist, and it was in fact your misunderstanding
I’m absolutely certain that Ruger isn’t a fascist, though he is obviously more accepting of fascism than I (or I would hope, most people) am.
I think you're confused mate. You definitely said you weren't willing to debate fascists after telling Roger you were done with him.
What the fascination with being right?
You do have a weird habit of telling people what they meant when they wrote it, and you didn’t.
I have this weird habit of reading what's written and taking it at face value.
You should try it sometime
I won’t debate with fascists + I won’t debate with Roger does not = Roger is a fascist.
I also said I won’t debate with flat earthers. Does that mean all flat earther’s are fascists?
You really should read exactly what you wrote. If you meant something else then you should be clear when writing, when something is in black and white, its very hard to come back from that.
You accuse me of always wanting to be right, whilst also disputing what I was thinking when I wrote something. You’re hilarious. Please never change
As I've said, read exactly what you wrote and if you're willing to see it, you'll understand how I break it down and come to the conclusion I did.
I'll give you a clue ??
Speaking of flat earthers, you add a qualifier. Speaking of Nazis, you add a qualifier. Speaking of Conservatives (Roger), you're good with them but not fascists.
It doesn't even take good reading comprehension to understand any of this.
And for you, I'll never change "Now we're done with this, fancy going back to the 300k less jobs in the city? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
