@Absalon
Incumbent Hitler versus New Hitler is an argument, I guess. But if one says they would support new hitler over incumbent hitler one is saying one would support A Hitler, and if you support A. Hitler you're a nazi!
Absalon
Incumbent Hitler versus New Hitler is an argument, I guess. But if one says they would support new hitler over incumbent hitler one is saying one would support A Hitler, and if you support A. Hitler you're a nazi!
This took me several attempts to parse correctly.
Casual on
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
alas the personal toxicity of jeremy corbyn is probably the single reason this election has even a chance of a conservative win
+7
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Is "their plan might damage businesses" a concern or a hope?
This is the stuff that's driving me towards internet conspiracy videos; you largely agree with his policies, but are concerned that he'll shed his skin and reveal himself to be Stalin reborn? Crushing all opponent beneath his New World Order with the same ruthless efficiency he has approached other obstacles as Leader?
Is number one a weird confluence of people scared he will spend too much and damage the economy, and those who think he's not the one who can carry this out?
Or is the "I really don't want to have to find out who Stormzy is and why that matters" vote also a key metric.
Ha, who I am kidding, it totally is regardless of any other Labour polling.
Elections aren't really that much about policy for most voters. Being a shitty leader has real actual consequences for people's desire to vote for you.
If people don't trust you or don't like you or whatever, they will be more hesitant to vote for you.
+16
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
This is completely, insanely undemocratic and even a casual consideration of the implications of this statements should make you realize that.
Yes, it is. I do not believe that the gallows should be brought back no matter what a majority of people think. I think that race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation rights exist and must be protected no matter the public will. I don't believe that declaring war on Ireland is something that should be put up to a plebiscite. Untempered majority rule is not an inherent good, nor should it be portrayed as one.
I realize this from a couple days ago but I don't think "Human rights are not up for debate" is the same as you saying "politicians shouldn't follow the will of the people if it causes damage to the country or people". Of course the majority doesn't get to strip away the humanity of people. And of course untempered majority rule is not an inherent good, and nobody said it was.
But your example of war on Ireland suggests that the problem is simply the aspect of direct democracy of a referendum. If elected representatives choose to declare war on Ireland, like they did on Afghanistan and Iraq and etc., that would presumably be fine, right? Does that apply to the other things too? Is it fine to bring back the gallows, or deny human rights, if it's the rulers doing it? Is your objection to the "will of the people" bit or to the action itself? Because the reason I called your remark insanely undemocratic wasn't because I don't believe some things are simply not up for discussion, but because you are saying that those in charge should stop the people from doing themselves harm in general. e.g. don't Brexit because it would do a lot of damage to the country. which is doubly ridiculous because the British people weren't asked if they wanted to join the EU in the first place. Is there anything you think they should have a say in? Or is it just that they should have a say unless they make the damaging choice? (And in that case shouldn't we prevent the people from electing Conservatives all the time?)
also if the problem is a plebiscite, couldn't the people just elect people to do that thing? sure ignore the referendum, but what if the people give a majority to the party running on a "Get Brexit done" platform? how is that actually different from following the will of the people?
And of course untempered majority rule is not an inherent good, and nobody said it was.
What exactly does temper majority rule if you say it is undemocratic that anyone should go against the "will of the people" (which will always be ill-defined and up for interpretation)
+4
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
like the thing is, and the fundamental problem with the "Ignore the referendum and simply Remain" position is, that the people elected someone who promised to hold a referendum. you can say the people shouldn't get to have a referendum here, which what the hell?, but then they'll just elect someone to do the actual thing. You just get a GE that is a referendum which is just worse. The whole point of a referendum is to isolate one issue from all the other regular political issues. if you think leaving should be possible then the only difference between holding a referendum and electing someone to do it is that the latter is way messier.
If you think leaving the EU just shouldn't be possible, like how removing people's human rights shouldn't be possible, then the undemocratic thing but also that's just a weird position to have? like, deep international relations between nation states are the obvious examples of things that should be up to the people of a nation?
I think you're missing the point that people would vote for the Remain party
And if that Remain party would win the election, that result would be just as democratic as a plebiscite
It's also fair for people who are going to have their rights stripped away from them to wish for a candidate who would represent their personal interests
Unless your problem is with representative democracy in general
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
The fact that voter turnout is a variable affecting elections continually baffles me in every country where it's a thing.
I feel like government, in many cases, exists to protect people from their own stupid impulses, and "stay home and don't have a say in who rules you" is a very stupid impulse that people shouldn't necessarily be free to exercise, because it actively harms everyone else.
Australia may have a couple awful election results, but at least we can confidently say it's as a result of the majority of voters being awful people, rather than mostly good people who choose to stay home and let the awful people decide who rules.
McDonnell was on Radio 4 this morning effectively taking apart the pathetic defences of the Tories for Johnson not turning up and delaying or ignoring the Andrew Neil interview. He's a lot better at interviews than Corbyn. Doesn't get tetchy, engages a lot more effectively, a better speaker in general.
McDonnell was on Radio 4 this morning effectively taking apart the pathetic defences of the Tories for Johnson not turning up and delaying or ignoring the Andrew Neil interview. He's a lot better at interviews than Corbyn. Doesn't get tetchy, engages a lot more effectively, a better speaker in general.
Who, Boris?
Last time he was on with Neil he got pressed into what WTO terms mean, and all Boris could do was say he places his faith in article so and so and when pressed on what the article actually said he didn't know. And that's the kind of journalist we need. Keep pushing these morons on their BS.
Johnson is being interviewed by Nick Ferrari on LBC right now. I'm not listening, but judging from the Guardian blog's account of it things aren't going very well.
How come that Johnson is prepared to comment on other people’s children if he isn’t prepared to talk about his own?, Ferrari asks. “How many children do you have? Are you fully and wholly involved in all their lives?”
“I don’t think this is what the nation wants to hear,” Johnson says, after a lengthy attempt to deflect.
Is there another Johnson on the way?, he is asked. The PM struggles again, stammers a few lines about getting Brexit done.
Where is Jacob Rees-Mogg?, Ferrari asks. What did the PM say to him after he made widely criticised derogatory comments about the victims of the Grenfell tragedy? The PM doesn’t answer and digresses again, but is eventually cornered.
“I’m not going to go into my conversations with colleagues,” the PM says, clearly thrown by Ferrari’s insistence that he answer this question.
The next caller asks Johnson about his plans for social care.
We’re putting £1.5bn in, and another billion every year for the next five years.
Johnson is pressed about a statement he made a few weeks back, in which he expressed that he doesn’t think anybody should have to sell their home to get social care. How will it then be funded, Ferrari asks? Johnson grumbles and mumbles for a bit. “You don’t know, do you? [..] You don’t have a clue!,” Ferrari says. “I don’t have this figure now, no,” Johnson says.
Nick Ferrari really tears into people and I love it
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Is there another Johnson on the way?, he is asked. The PM struggles again, stammers a few lines about getting Brexit done.
Not being able to answer whether he's managed to impregnate someone is a hell of a look. Might as well just say "Look, I fuck a lot of women and never use birth control, so who knows?" Saying that you're currently not expecting another child with your partner should be gravy unless you're thinking it's a trap where the followup will be about all the other women you're sleeping with.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+10
Options
TavIrish Minister for DefenceRegistered Userregular
It's frustrating to see how badly Boris can do in practically every interview and how little difference it's going to make. I think everyone voting in this election had made their minds up as soon as it was called and nothing in the campaign has changed it.
Johnson's dad just responded on TV to a member of the public calling his son Pinocchio by saying he didn't think the British public had the literacy to say that.
As Phil Wang commented, the apple doesn't fall far from the cunt.
Other Labour figures attack Johnson on it, but since Corbyn gets the most screen time it's a big gap in offensive capability. I certainly don't think he's gaining many votes by not attacking Johnson's character out of his own unshakeable nobility.
Posts
Steam | XBL
Incumbent Hitler versus New Hitler is an argument, I guess. But if one says they would support new hitler over incumbent hitler one is saying one would support A Hitler, and if you support A. Hitler you're a nazi!
This took me several attempts to parse correctly.
alas the personal toxicity of jeremy corbyn is probably the single reason this election has even a chance of a conservative win
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Boris Johnson: "Fuck business."
Steam | XBL
I believe that's found at 22 Acacia Avenue.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
That's the place where we all go.
Steam | XBL
Is number one a weird confluence of people scared he will spend too much and damage the economy, and those who think he's not the one who can carry this out?
Or is the "I really don't want to have to find out who Stormzy is and why that matters" vote also a key metric.
Ha, who I am kidding, it totally is regardless of any other Labour polling.
If people don't trust you or don't like you or whatever, they will be more hesitant to vote for you.
I realize this from a couple days ago but I don't think "Human rights are not up for debate" is the same as you saying "politicians shouldn't follow the will of the people if it causes damage to the country or people". Of course the majority doesn't get to strip away the humanity of people. And of course untempered majority rule is not an inherent good, and nobody said it was.
But your example of war on Ireland suggests that the problem is simply the aspect of direct democracy of a referendum. If elected representatives choose to declare war on Ireland, like they did on Afghanistan and Iraq and etc., that would presumably be fine, right? Does that apply to the other things too? Is it fine to bring back the gallows, or deny human rights, if it's the rulers doing it? Is your objection to the "will of the people" bit or to the action itself? Because the reason I called your remark insanely undemocratic wasn't because I don't believe some things are simply not up for discussion, but because you are saying that those in charge should stop the people from doing themselves harm in general. e.g. don't Brexit because it would do a lot of damage to the country. which is doubly ridiculous because the British people weren't asked if they wanted to join the EU in the first place. Is there anything you think they should have a say in? Or is it just that they should have a say unless they make the damaging choice? (And in that case shouldn't we prevent the people from electing Conservatives all the time?)
also if the problem is a plebiscite, couldn't the people just elect people to do that thing? sure ignore the referendum, but what if the people give a majority to the party running on a "Get Brexit done" platform? how is that actually different from following the will of the people?
What exactly does temper majority rule if you say it is undemocratic that anyone should go against the "will of the people" (which will always be ill-defined and up for interpretation)
If you think leaving the EU just shouldn't be possible, like how removing people's human rights shouldn't be possible, then the undemocratic thing but also that's just a weird position to have? like, deep international relations between nation states are the obvious examples of things that should be up to the people of a nation?
And if that Remain party would win the election, that result would be just as democratic as a plebiscite
It's also fair for people who are going to have their rights stripped away from them to wish for a candidate who would represent their personal interests
Unless your problem is with representative democracy in general
I feel like government, in many cases, exists to protect people from their own stupid impulses, and "stay home and don't have a say in who rules you" is a very stupid impulse that people shouldn't necessarily be free to exercise, because it actively harms everyone else.
Australia may have a couple awful election results, but at least we can confidently say it's as a result of the majority of voters being awful people, rather than mostly good people who choose to stay home and let the awful people decide who rules.
One Tory on my Facebook has this as their current status:
He's now muted, obviously
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Who, Boris?
Last time he was on with Neil he got pressed into what WTO terms mean, and all Boris could do was say he places his faith in article so and so and when pressed on what the article actually said he didn't know. And that's the kind of journalist we need. Keep pushing these morons on their BS.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Not being able to answer whether he's managed to impregnate someone is a hell of a look. Might as well just say "Look, I fuck a lot of women and never use birth control, so who knows?" Saying that you're currently not expecting another child with your partner should be gravy unless you're thinking it's a trap where the followup will be about all the other women you're sleeping with.
speaking of, the Beeb had these up on their social media before the registration deadline
it's hilariously transparent as well as being a total How Do You Do, Fellow Kids? move
As Phil Wang commented, the apple doesn't fall far from the cunt.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
We don't need to be literate for that reference
(I'm aware that I'm missing the major issue with what he said, but still)
(I think Aquaman made that joke?)
Let's be honest here. :P
Just goddamn, who thought not attacking his character was a good idea? How did this idea not immediately get laughed out of the room?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnsons-father-dismisses-voters-idiots-for-calling-his-son-a-liar_uk_5de111a4e4b0913e6f7d54d0?ncid=fcbklnkukhpmg00000001&fbclid=IwAR3Dvy50lwUc6UOpTg_kcSfVLW1ShMubzAOLXJQZyCiJQ6WfT4vaC8rDPsE
Hopefully the masses remember that while thinking he's cute and cuddly on fucking reality shows.
Now there's an idea...
Steam | XBL
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50604781
Edit: police say a number of people have been injured and a man has been detained.
Steam | XBL
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Do you mean the assassination of Jo Cox or something else?