Webbo Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 Just now, RumbleFox said: No, I really don't, you seem to be putting words into my mouth on every occasion and it is beginning to confuse me. I was asking a direct question relating directly to the words which another poster wrote (ie that he would not be put off voting as certain things do not affect him). At no point have I made assumptions about anyone else, nor in fact actually directly accused him of it, more I have asked him to clarify. I am genuinely confused as to what you are saying. Thanks though. X If you want a response you're going to have to be more specific. What are people voting for that isn't for the greater good. These vague questions and then denials are a bit pointless.
Innovindil Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 Just now, RumbleFox said: Thanks for your response. I see. But is there an argument that we should care a bit more, even if it doesn't affect you? To try and explain using a rather glib example, what if their voting record was against Leicester fans and everyone else just voted for them saying "well I am not a Leicester fan", would you not feel that they were being slightly unfair/selfish? Again, not having a go just curious. Of course there is an argument for it, and if that tickles your pickle then great. But for me, I'd rather be unfair/selfish, I don't expect anyone else to look out for me and I'm not sure why people expect me to look out for them tbh.
Popular Post RumbleFox Posted 5 February 2018 Popular Post Posted 5 February 2018 Just now, Webbo said: If you want a response you're going to have to be more specific. What are people voting for that isn't for the greater good. These vague questions and then denials are a bit pointless. I think you probably need to go back and read the original point and then my response to it as I think you have misunderstood slightly. Someone said a voting record of say, anti gay marriage, may not put them off voting for that person as it would not affect them directly so I merely asked whether it might be a more useful state of affairs if we still voted for some things which did not affect us if they might benefit the wider society. I think you seem to be having a debate with an imaginary version of me rather than with what I am actually saying. 2 3
RumbleFox Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 Just now, Innovindil said: Of course there is an argument for it, and if that tickles your pickle then great. But for me, I'd rather be unfair/selfish, I don't expect anyone else to look out for me and I'm not sure why people expect me to look out for them tbh. Thanks for your response and honesty. I disagree but everyone's different.
Carl the Llama Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 2 minutes ago, RumbleFox said: I think you probably need to go back and read the original point and then my response to it as I think you have misunderstood slightly. Someone said a voting record of say, anti gay marriage, may not put them off voting for that person as it would not affect them directly so I merely asked whether it might be a more useful state of affairs if we still voted for some things which did not affect us if they might benefit the wider society. I think you seem to be having a debate with an imaginary version of me rather than with what I am actually saying. Welcome to politics with Webbo. 1 2
Webbo Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 Just now, RumbleFox said: I think you probably need to go back and read the original point and then my response to it as I think you have misunderstood slightly. Someone said a voting record of say, anti gay marriage, may not put them off voting for that person as it would not affect them directly so I merely asked whether it might be a more useful state of affairs if we still voted for some things which did not affect us if they might benefit the wider society. I think you seem to be having a debate with an imaginary version of me rather than with what I am actually saying. If banning gay marriage was the only policy someone stood on I wouldn't vote for them. I don't want to put words in your mouth or accuse you of supporting any party but as neutral observer can you think of something a labour MP has done which you would make you ask Labour voters how they could vote for that?
RumbleFox Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: Welcome to politics with Webbo. All I can do is try to listen and to explain myself clearly. 1
Strokes Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 Could I vote for Jacob Rees-Mogg led Conservative party? That would depend on the manifesto they presented, I wouldn’t take much interest in his personal voting record myself as he is still worth one vote and his future voting record would have to be in tune with that manifesto. 1
RumbleFox Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Webbo said: If banning gay marriage was the only policy someone stood on I wouldn't vote for them. I don't want to put words in your mouth or accuse you of supporting any party but as neutral observer can you think of something a labour MP has done which you would make you ask Labour voters how they could vote for that? Yes I can think of loads but the thread had been focusing on Rees-Mogg for quite a few pages and I have literally only just started reading this thread so I was genuinely interested to find out why some people might want to vote for him as, to me, he seems quite unpleasant. It was more a case of "OK, let's see what they are saying on the ol' politics thread and see if I can join in. Oh, they are talking about Rees-Mogg, I don't like him very much, let's see if anyone can change my mind". To answer your question, it is like voting for Blair the second time or, more recently, Jared O'Mara. I certainly would think twice about voting for him. Edited 5 February 2018 by RumbleFox
Webbo Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 1 minute ago, RumbleFox said: Yes I can think of loads but the thread had been focusing on Rees-Mogg for quite a few pages and I have literally only just started reading this thread so I was genuinely interested to find out why some people might want to vote for him as, to me, he seems quite unpleasant. It was more a case of "OK, let;s see what they are saying on the ol' politics thread and see if I can join in. Oh, they are talking about Rees-Mogg, I don't like him very much, let;s see if anyone can change my mind". To answer your question, it is like voting for Blair the second time or, more recently, Jared O'Mara. I certainly would think twice about voting for him. What has JRM done apart from vote with his conscience according to his christian beliefs? You might not like his beliefs, but others do. I'm liberal enough to accept that we don't all believe in the same thing. As long as he's not inflicting harm on others what's the problem?
Guest Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 13 minutes ago, Webbo said: If banning gay marriage was the only policy someone stood on I wouldn't vote for them. I don't want to put words in your mouth or accuse you of supporting any party but as neutral observer can you think of something a labour MP has done which you would make you ask Labour voters how they could vote for that? Can you?
RumbleFox Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 3 minutes ago, Webbo said: What has JRM done apart from vote with his conscience according to his christian beliefs? You might not like his beliefs, but others do. I'm liberal enough to accept that we don't all believe in the same thing. As long as he's not inflicting harm on others what's the problem? OK, again you are creating straw men so maybe best we stop and other's can decide whether I was being unreasonable or not. Thanks again for your responses though, I appreciate the effort. 1
Webbo Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 1 minute ago, toddybad said: Can you? Labour? How long have you got?
Webbo Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 2 minutes ago, RumbleFox said: OK, again you are creating straw men so maybe best we stop and other's can decide whether I was being unreasonable or not. Thanks again for your responses though, I appreciate the effort. You're not being unreasonable, I think you might be trolling though.
Guest Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 I need to try some of this 'reasonableness. Rumble has torn Webbo a new one without having to get all angry and shouty I wonder how long he can stay this calm in the face of webbo doing his thing?
Guest Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 2 minutes ago, Webbo said: Labour? How long have you got? So long as it's questions about current policy and not things that may or may not have happened 30-40 years ago, as long as you want.
RumbleFox Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 Just now, Webbo said: You're not being unreasonable, I think you might be trolling though. Honestly. You have misrepresented every single post I have made, creating straw men, ignoring my actual words and attempting to refute things I haven't even said in the first place. To be honest I am genuinely confused as I felt I was being reasonable and, at most, inquisitive, and I re-read every single post but couldn't quite figure out what on earth you were reading as it seemed to bear no relation to my posts which is why it's probably best for me to cease and other posters can make up their minds. My head hurts. 1 2
Webbo Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 Just now, toddybad said: So long as it's questions about current policy and not things that may or may not have happened 30-40 years ago, as long as you want. How about the plan to confiscate property? Empty houses for example. Industries to be compulsorily purchased not at their market value but at the price govt decides. Corbyn's refusal to condemn his blackshirts in momentum? John McDonell's endorsement of violence?
Webbo Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 3 minutes ago, RumbleFox said: Honestly. You have misrepresented every single post I have made, creating straw men, ignoring my actual words and attempting to refute things I haven't even said in the first place. To be honest I am genuinely confused as I felt I was being reasonable and, at most, inquisitive, and I re-read every single post but couldn't quite figure out what on earth you were reading as it seemed to bear no relation to my posts which is why it's probably best for me to cease and other posters can make up their minds. My head hurts. What strawmen? I've told you why I'd vote for him. You've asked why people don't vote for the common good without defining what the common good is. Your posts are meaningless waffle which nobody can answer without you being able to deny what you meant.
Guest Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 1 minute ago, Webbo said: How about the plan to confiscate property? Empty houses for example. Industries to be compulsorily purchased not at their market value but at the price govt decides. Corbyn's refusal to condemn his blackshirts in momentum? John McDonell's endorsement of violence? Woah! Calm down. Let's take them one at a time. Tell me about this plan to confiscate property.
RumbleFox Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 Just now, Webbo said: What strawmen? I've told you why I'd vote for him. You've asked why people don't vote for the common good without defining what the common good is. Your posts are meaningless waffle which nobody can answer without you being able to deny what you meant. As I said, I will leave it for now as the last thing I ever want to do is fall out with a Mod, haha. Thanks for engaging, I enjoy talking about serious issues. X
Webbo Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: Woah! Calm down. Let's take them one at a time. Tell me about this plan to confiscate property. I'm surprised you missed it, it's in the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/28/corbyn-labour-would-buy-8000-properties-for-the-homeless Corbyn: Labour would buy 8,000 properties for homeless people Leader says party would also give local authorities power to seize properties left vacant
Buce Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, toddybad said: If there's one person on here that would gladly see everybody else perish if he came out better off it's innovindil. Oh, I think there’s at least one more, Toddy. He just doesn’t have the courage to admit it. Edited 5 February 2018 by Buce 1
Strokes Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 22 minutes ago, Webbo said: I'm surprised you missed it, it's in the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/28/corbyn-labour-would-buy-8000-properties-for-the-homeless Corbyn: Labour would buy 8,000 properties for homeless people Leader says party would also give local authorities power to seize properties left vacant I actually think that’s one of their better plans. Foreign investors are buying up properties in London and don’t even bother to rent them out because the return is good enough as it is. It’s not ideal and sure it doesn’t sit comfortably with me that homes could be seized in this way but how else do we stop this shameless profiteering wrecking our way of life? 2
David Guiza Posted 5 February 2018 Posted 5 February 2018 21 minutes ago, Webbo said: I'm surprised you missed it, it's in the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/28/corbyn-labour-would-buy-8000-properties-for-the-homeless Corbyn: Labour would buy 8,000 properties for homeless people Leader says party would also give local authorities power to seize properties left vacant I interpret that as reducing the embarrassingly high homeless rate and making use property that serves no use to anybody whilst being left vacant for a prolonged period of time, as opposed to seizing the means of production from the honest wealthy. I work quite a bit in property law and to many it's like a literal game of monopoly with the amount of property they pass around and collect, which seems at least a little ridiculous whilst thousands are without shelter or can't afford to get onto the property ladder.
Recommended Posts