Jump to content

Charl91

Member
  • Post count

    4,241
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Charl91 last won the day on 8 March 2017

Charl91 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,668 Excellent

About Charl91

  • Rank
    Key Player
  • Birthday 16/05/1991

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

5,824 profile views
  1. Charl91

    Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    Yeah, sadly I agree with you. It's a shame really, because I think he'd genuinely have a chance of winning a general election, which none of the above have a hope of doing. Wouldn't mind Tom Watson either, though.
  2. Charl91

    Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    Labour are a shambles at the moment. Depressing really. Keir Starmer for PM.
  3. Charl91

    Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    Can't agree with that more, Alf. MattP is like one of those bloody Russian propaganda robots. It really lowers the level of political discussion on these forums (not that it was particularly high to begin with!). It's amazing how someone can be so passionate about nobly defending the Jewish from anti-semitism, yet simultaneously find it very difficult to criticise Donald Trump, Islamaphobia, or any other number of problems and injustices. It's so transparent that it's laughable. I like political discussion - even if it's stuff I disagree with, I like to hear other people's point of view. But just repeating the same (blown-out-of-proportion) point ad nauseum isn't political discussion, it's just a sub-par propaganda machine. Oh and look, even as I type this, we get this beauty of a quote. "Not on par with anti-semitism" I mean what?!?! You can't even make this up. "Look, Labour's type of racism is worse than the Tory's racism"
  4. Certainly getting better. In previous seasons, when I saw his name on the team sheet, I'd be like Whereas now, I'm currently at about: Which is a big improvement. Not the complete package just yet, and his delivery needs work (he's no peak Fuchs), but I'm starting to see that he has the potential to be great, if he continues to keep improving at his current rate then we'll have a quality player on our hands.
  5. Charl91

    Huddersfield (H) Match Thread

    I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.
  6. Charl91

    Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    Yeah, to be fair I don't really disagree with you there - I see the logic in both sides of the argument. I think it depends on the political situation at the time though. I didn't vote tactically in my first few GE's, but I did at the previous one because I thought Brexit was such a big issue, and I thought the most important thing was to stop the tories getting in. I suppose it's ironic really that I voted Labour instead of Lib Dem's because of Brexit
  7. Charl91

    Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    I'm a realist (or a pessimist. Or both). With tactical voting, it means my vote might at least have a chance of meaning something. It's like if you have three options A: Really Shit B: A little shit C: Not shit at all. Obviously you want C, but you know C won't ever happen, so the best you can hope for is try and stop A happening. Yeah, in an ideal world I'd vote C, and all these other C voters would appear out of the woodwork, and we'd have street parties and everything. But sadly it's not the world we live in; as much as people say "well if everyone actually voted for the party they want....", my vote is independent of everyone elses, and me voting for unpopular party C isn't going to change everyone elses minds. Yeah, maybe I could go out and campaign. But my level of caring-ness only extends as far as ranting on football forums at stupid times of the night. (I'm a swing voter anyway, voted Tory, Lib Dem, Labour, in that order)
  8. Charl91

    Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    I don't think the Lib Dem's would be worse, to be honest (but that's not to say that others share the same view). I probably would have voted Lib Dems if I'd believed that they'd had a chance in my area. If we had a different voting system, I would have certainly voted LD. However, Lib Dems got less than 10% of the Tory vote in my area. Would have been a wasted vote. I voted Labour this time round (though Tory's won by a landslide anyway). To me it was Lib-Dem = No Brexit, Labour = Soft Brexit. While the former would be preferable, the latter was the only realistic choice.
  9. Charl91

    Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    Tricky one. I would probably lean towards yes, if I'm honest, as long as it was made clear what "no deal" actually meant. You know what, if people knew the hardships that no-deal entitled, and still wanted to vote for it (knowing that we would be worse off economically, and that some magical trade deal with Rivendell wasn't going to materialise), then I'd probably accept it. I'd be very bitter about it, but I would probably more likely to accept it. I can't speak for most remainders, but I think the thing that sits poorly with me is how many false promises were thrown around pre-referendum (and again, I'm not going to say that the remain campaign was guilt free, but at least remain was the status quo, so a generally known quantity). Most of the amazing deals and benefits that were said would come to fruition, by prominent leave campaigners, clearly aren't going to happen. If people said "Yeah, we know we'll be poorer, but it's what we want" then yeah, fair enough. I think it's a shitty decision, but I could at least try to respect it, even if I disagree. But I am of the strong belief (especially from the Brexit voters I've spoken to) that at least a small, but significant percentage of Brexit voters believed promises that were blatantly lies, and it does gall me that such a major decision could be swung by that level of deceit.
  10. Charl91

    Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    Yeah, in an ideal world. But politics doesn't work like that - the chances of coordinating 16 million people switching to Lib-Dems is nigh impossible, and anyway, just because Lib-Dems want to remain, it doesn't mean that they're necessarily suited to governing in other areas. General elections are based on multiple issues. Hence why we have (poorly planned) referendums.
  11. Charl91

    Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    It's not right. You and I both know that Lib-Dems had no chance, and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. That being said, in hindsight I also believe that the same is true about May (and I might have even voted Tory had I known), but her pre-election rhetoric suggested different. Hindsight is 20/20 though.
  12. Charl91

    Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    Of course I want to overturn the result. I want what's best for the country, and I'm not ashamed to say it - why would I be? As said before, if the Brexit referendum had gone the other way, then Brexiteers would be doing the same. Don't make me laugh and claim that you'd sit back and say "ah well, it was 48% to 52%, might aswell leave it at that then lads". Don't talk to me about being honest, because it makes you a damn hypocrite. Because maybe remain might be the preferred option, especially as "deal" will be worse than what we have, and "no deal" will be a car crash. Many people have now wised up the fact that many of the things that were promised were pure fantasy. I think that lots of Brexiteers actually realise that remain is now probably the most popular option, and that's why they no longer want to hear about the will of the people. Apparently the will-of-the-people two years ago (based on ficitious promises) is more important than the will of a more-informed people in the present time
  13. Charl91

    Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    Nah, I'm sorry but this is just wrong. Firstly, we get a lot of concessions being in the EU. If we scrape and grovel to get back in, it's not going to be on the terms that we left. Secondly, in our first-past-the-post system, a vote for Lib Dem is a wasted vote in most seats. If people voted for Lib Dems, then all that would mean is that Theresa May would have had more of a mandate to push through the harder Brexit that it seemed she was gunning for. Many people (myself included) voted Labour because at least it seemed more likely that they'd be go for a softer Brexit. Better to be slightly shit then really really shit. Some (misguided) people also voted Labour because they were also under the impression that they would stop Brexit, since Corbyn was deliberately ambiguous with his wording and led them to believe that he was pro-europe. At the end of the day, Lib Dems were never an option. The only realistic option was to vote for Labour to stop the Tories having quite so many seats. I seem to remember TM went to the polls to get a bigger mandate for her Brexit, and ended up losing quite a few seats.
  14. Charl91

    Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

    There's a big difference between First Referendum: A) Remain B) Leave (with hundreds of permutations of what this could mean) and Second Referendum: A) Remain B) Leave (with actual plan) (Or even a two parter, with Remain/Leave, and then a Super Soft Brexit / No deal option) The first was comparing a fairly known (and boring) quantity with an option with which people could project their own hopes and ideals onto. That question should never have been asked; it's like saying "What would you prefer, vanilla ice-cream or this mystery undetermined flavour". I suppose in some ways it separated the optimists from the pessimists (like me) - optimists assume that they're going to end up with their favourite flavour (probably corned beef), while I damn well know that it's going to be bloody pistachio. A new referendum should offer two concrete options. Then that should at least put to bed most claims of not knowing what was voted for.
×