The Politics Thread 2019

[Facecloth]

20 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I'm sorry, really I am, but wtf dude. 

Honestly, it was a weekly occurrence, usually Carl or Buce being accused by Webbo. It happened a lot. It may not be the most inventive summary of the type of conversation, but its what happened.

[lifted*fox]

23 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

People on this thread really need to stop putting people in stereotypical boxes as to where they think other people’s values are harboured.

 

not everyone is the same and obviously people have different opinions irrespective of age, colour, wealth, etc.

 

BUT on FT there are a few posters who you will find are pro-brexit, pro-trump (or very defensive of him / his administration) and then can occasionally be found making fairly backwards / dismissive posts elsewhere regarding things like climate change / veganism / sexuality, etc.

 

and it's not for anyone to defend themselves and say 'that's not me / I'm not the same as that' - that's fine, we can probably all pick them out of a line-up - but that's unfortunately the company you've nested with. 

 

if you're on the end on of one my more full-on posts I've more than likely seen you talking shit in several of those categories above. one or two shitty opinions I can take, but if you're an all round shitty person - it comes across in your posts across multiple threads. 

 

take wortho in this thread today - in here one minute asking why remainers think all brexiteers are the same and not to make assumptions and then getting a roasting for casual racism (because it was OK in the 70's) in the jokes thread. that's literally living up to my exact stereotype of how I've come to view a number of (not all) Brexiteers. living in the past, a tiny bit racist and unable to give any answers in here when questioned except for 'BUT DEMOCRACY!'. 

 

 

disclaimer - there's also a few posters on here who voted for Brexit (and still, to this day, defend it to the end) who I get on with just fine. whatever, but generally dickheadery - I can't help but jump on those people.

[lifted*fox]

55 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Honestly, it was a weekly occurrence, usually Carl or Buce being accused by Webbo. It happened a lot. It may not be the most inventive summary of the type of conversation, but its what happened.

 

I'm sure people on here know him IRL and maybe he's a lovely bloke but I can only go on what I saw here tbf. don't wish the guy any ill and hope he's in fine health, etc. but certainly ain't missed by me. 

 

brings me to one final point - I see some posts about all of the 'intelligent discussion' having disappeared from this thread along with certain prominent pro-brexit posters.

 

there can't be many intelligent things left to say in defence of the circus that Brexit has turned out to be. I'd be embarrassed to continue trying to justify it as well tbf. it's no wonder people have bailed out. 

 

you backed a shitty horse with 3 legs, it runs kinda funny and it's gonna fly off course and trample people but they wanna poke fun at you for backing it before it does. 

 

Edited 26 July 2019 by lifted*fox

[BlueSi13]

15 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Not even close to being true:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/25/brexit-election-what-are-chances-poll-before-31-october

It was the talk of social media yesterday.  This article explains why:

https://www.economicvoice.com/is-it-too-late-for-a-brexit-general-election/

 

Happy to be corrected if this is incorrect.

[Mike Oxlong]

4 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

1. Labour is now the ONLY political party to have never had a female leader. 

2. None of the parties female leaders were selected via All Woman Shortlists. 

The attempt to be right on being rather spoiled by their use of dancing girls in high heels emojis to personify wimmin

 

Might as well have chucked in a few ?‍♂️?‍♀️??

[Buce]

12 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

It was the talk of social media yesterday.  This article explains why:

https://www.economicvoice.com/is-it-too-late-for-a-brexit-general-election/

 

Happy to be corrected if this is incorrect.

 

Well, I’m no expert so, like you, I can only go on the opinions of those who are. What I note in the article you linked is the use of words like ‘may’ and ‘might’, which implies he’s not sure of the veracity of his opinion. Neither does it take into account the likelihood of parliament blocking a ‘no deal’ Brexit, forcing an extension beyond Oct 29th. 

And the latest political media talk is that Bozo is positioning himself for an election. 

 

I guess it’s a case of wait and see. 

[BlueSi13]

12 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

OK, as long as you promise not to tell those who do so to "get over it" or that they're being undemocratic? Deal?

 

 

Oh come on. Both sides have their share of nutcases and I don't think anyone's more embarrassed by the #FBPE types than the majority of sensible Remain voters, but let's not forget the continued claims that Brexit supporters will cause mass civil disobedience if it doesn't happen - even if it turns out that leaving would actually bring no benefits to the country whatsoever.

 

The arguments coming from those devoted to the cause of Brexit have got less and less sensible as time has gone on. As others have said, it's now about the thing itself rather than any supposed benefits it would bring. It's become about 'Brexit means Brexit' which, ultimately, means absolutely nothing.

Oh absolutely, I have never had any problem with the idea of remainers campaigning to rejoin after a period of time after Brexit.  After all this is essentially what happens after a General Election.  New government comes in after a national vote and if the country decides it isn't working they get voted out again.

 

However simply trying to stop Brexit before it happens will only result in irreparable political and social conflict.  That 17m+ people who voted for it will rightly feel completely betrayed and voiceless and will likely respond by shifting en-masse to the fringes of the political spectrum therefore altering the countries leaning and direction for a generation.

 

Personally I remain entirely optimistic about Brexit, the country has performed admirably since the vote in 2016 with employment, wages and growth up whilst still retaining healthy investment (still the top destination in Europe for foreign investment).  This was all completely against what the forecasters predicted would happen upon there being a vote to leave.

 

I strongly believe that no true Brexiteer wants to leave without a deal in place, we have always argued for a comprehensive and sensible free trade deal that is clearly beneficial to both sides.  

 

However the majority of us have always felt that no deal would always be preferable to leaving with the sort of deal that would keep the UK trapped and tied to the EU like some sort of voiceless colony.

 

The ball is in the EU's court now.  The deal on the table is dead as it will never get through the HoC.  If they continue to argue that they are completely unwilling to renegotiate then based on upon what we've seen and heard, it will be WTO on the 31st.

[BlueSi13]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Well, I’m no expert so, like you, I can only go on the opinions of those who are. What I note in the article you linked is the use of words like ‘may’ and ‘might’, which implies he’s not sure of the veracity of his opinion. Neither does it take into account the likelihood of parliament blocking a ‘no deal’ Brexit, forcing an extension beyond Oct 29th. 

And the latest political media talk is that Bozo is positioning himself for an election. 

 

I guess it’s a case of wait and see. 

Most certainly.

 

But my understanding is that parliament can only instruct the Prime Minister to request a further extension, however he can equally reject any offer that comes back from the EU.  

 

I absolutely think we are headed for an election.  But most likely around November IMO.

[Kopfkino]

9 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

Oh absolutely, I have never had any problem with the idea of remainers campaigning to rejoin after a period of time after Brexit.  After all this is essentially what happens after a General Election.  New government comes in after a national vote and if the country decides it isn't working they get voted out again.

 

However simply trying to stop Brexit before it happens will only result in irreparable political and social conflict.  That 17m+ people who voted for it will rightly feel completely betrayed and voiceless and will likely respond by shifting en-masse to the fringes of the political spectrum therefore altering the countries leaning and direction for a generation.

 

Personally I remain entirely optimistic about Brexit, the country has performed admirably since the vote in 2016 with employment, wages and growth up whilst still retaining healthy investment (still the top destination in Europe for foreign investment).  This was all completely against what the forecasters predicted would happen upon there being a vote to leave.

 

I strongly believe that no true Brexiteer wants to leave without a deal in place, we have always argued for a comprehensive and sensible free trade deal that is clearly beneficial to both sides.  

 

However the majority of us have always felt that no deal would always be preferable to leaving with the sort of deal that would keep the UK trapped and tied to the EU like some sort of voiceless colony.

 

The ball is in the EU's court now.  The deal on the table is dead as it will never get through the HoC.  If they continue to argue that they are completely unwilling to renegotiate then based on upon what we've seen and heard, it will be WTO on the 31st.

 

And to get that you need to sort out withdrawal first, it's there in plain writing in Article 50. So how do you create a Withdrawal Agreement to get that? That's a how do you create a WA that acknowledges the realities of the situation and the fact the EU is not a negotiating partner whose only purpose is to serve the UK. The option is to revert back to a NI-only backstop assuming Boris refuses to bring it back in current form. 

 

Fundamentally, the ball isn't in the EU's court, it's up to the UK to show a sensible way through Parliament is possible. It's the kind of language that is clearly a primer to blame the EU for no-deal. The EU already sees the backstop as a huge UK win (cos it is) so they feel they've gone as far as they can. 

 

And so in my opinion, by not grasping and facing up to the realities of the situation and by expecting the EU to fall to the UK's feet, some 'true Brexiteers' must genuinely want no deal and by doing so ending up with the same thing from a weaker position. 

[urban.spaceman]

51 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

The attempt to be right on being rather spoiled by their use of dancing girls in high heels emojis to personify wimmin

 

Might as well have chucked in a few ?‍♂️?‍♀️??

These are the same people who previously thought the best way to get women into politics was to drive around in a pink minibus. 

[lifted*fox]

 

DEMOCRACY!

[Kopfkino]

If you're gonna rail against disinformation, it's probably a better idea to use an example of actual disinformation rather than something that, whilst imprecise, did happen.

[lifted*fox]

It's about the act of attaining Facebook data via Cambridge Analytica and specifically targeting people via social media with imprecise (as you called it) yet emotive tweets such as the polar bear tweet configured to their specific vulnerabilities and fears. 

 

They pushed out millions of ads like this in the final days leading up to the vote, influencing people who may not have voted for them otherwise. 

 

He uses an example about knowing whether people either have or don't have degrees but they knew much more than that. They knew if you liked / followed animal protection / rights groups, etc. and then exploited that. 

 

The opposition did not do this. So again, democracy? 

 

Why does everyone choose to ignore the clear links between all of these things? People who were involved have whistle-blown and they've been ignored. People who have been proven to have been involved are not being held to account like Darren Grimes. Why are people ignoring the blatant perversion of democracy all whilst crying out about how democratic the Brexit vote was? 

 

There is clear evidence that Vote Leave continued to push out adverts during the 72 hour agreed campaign break after Jo Cox's murder. Why is that being ignored? Everyone else stopped and they carried on - again targeting people whilst vulnerable. 

 

Honestly, it blows my mind. I don't for one minute think that 52pc of this country voted honestly for this absolute joke Brexit. I don't believe 17m people voted that way without interference. After nearly 3 years of talking to people about this shit I'm still yet to meet more than a handful of people willing to admit they voted pro-Brexit - from all walks of life. 

 

Everyone is dogshit scared of a 2nd ref because they know it'll be vastly different unless it gets manipulated again. It's a farce. 

 

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/07/26/boris-johnsons-game-of-russian-roulette/

 

Edited 27 July 2019 by lifted*fox
Link

[Kopfkino]

Rail against targeted ads and data mining all you want idc. I've said before wrt Trump, and it extends to Brexit, that the whole thing undermines democracy and needs regulating. Although again, its partly just another tool to for heads to bury deep into the sand rather than confronting the longstanding euroscepticsism and any legitimate reasons people might have for not wanting to remain part of the EU. Also not sure implying people lack autonomy is the best way of winning them round. 

 

 

Just an amusing classic FBPE talking about disinformation using an example that isn't disinformation. Still these are the bunch of people who will defend a made up EU department if you start complaining about it. 

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, lifted*fox said:

 

DEMOCRACY!

1. Campaign material and how people actually voted isn’t necessarily 100% related. For example, I voted remain via proxy while I was in Africa - I didn’t see a single minute of campaigning from either side. Should my vote have been discounted?

 

2. The only person during the referendum who was *actually* responsible for carrying out the result was David cvnting Cameron. He created a situation whereby ANYONE - Left, Right, Up, Down, Leave, Remain - could make any claim, and even if their side won, wouldn’t have to be made responsible for it.

[BlueSi13]

2 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

And to get that you need to sort out withdrawal first, it's there in plain writing in Article 50. So how do you create a Withdrawal Agreement to get that? That's a how do you create a WA that acknowledges the realities of the situation and the fact the EU is not a negotiating partner whose only purpose is to serve the UK. The option is to revert back to a NI-only backstop assuming Boris refuses to bring it back in current form. 

 

Fundamentally, the ball isn't in the EU's court, it's up to the UK to show a sensible way through Parliament is possible. It's the kind of language that is clearly a primer to blame the EU for no-deal. The EU already sees the backstop as a huge UK win (cos it is) so they feel they've gone as far as they can. 

 

And so in my opinion, by not grasping and facing up to the realities of the situation and by expecting the EU to fall to the UK's feet, some 'true Brexiteers' must genuinely want no deal and by doing so ending up with the same thing from a weaker position. 

The UK parliament has already done that in the form of the Brady Amendment which proposes finding alternatives to the Irish backstop.  This is the only proposal/plan that has found a majority in the House of Commons.

 

Considering that the current backstop has been rejected three times, that Parliament (and now new Prime Minister) has expressed a desire to see it renegotiated and that the EU are so far unwilling to consider it.  I fail to see how the ball isn't in their court?

 

 

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

In a perfect world, yes.

 

However, no border patrol agency in the world is faultless. That it's only come down to 1'500 incidents in six years means you have about a 0.0005% chance of being wrongfully arrested as a US citizen.

In the end, ICE agents are doing or trying to do their job just like an other person.

 

What would a world without national borders be and look like in your opinion? Would it be better? More liberated? Less chaotic?

When did this become about seeing a world with no borders? As much as I think there's going to be one world or no world, practically I don't think we're anywhere near being there harmoniously yet. It is possible to believe in reasonable border control and due process while at the same time calling out the excesses that ICE go to and thinking that they need to be frankly better at their jobs.

 

NB. 1500 cases out of three million is 0.05%, not 0.0005% - you forgot to carry the hundred (again .)

 

 

[MC Prussian]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

When did this become about seeing a world with no borders? As much as I think there's going to be one world or no world, practically I don't think we're anywhere near being there harmoniously yet. It is possible to believe in reasonable border control and due process while at the same time calling out the excesses that ICE go to and thinking that they need to be frankly better at their jobs.

 

NB. 1500 cases out of three million is 0.05%, not 0.0005% - you forgot to carry the hundred (again .)

 

 

1'500 out of three million cannot be called "excessive". Seriously.

 

Original percentage amended.  Doesn't change much, the likelihood of you getting wrongfully arrested as a US Citizen is still phenomenally small.

The real issues lie somewhere completely else.

Don't blame the messenger, you ought to look at the ones writing the message, the ones preventing ICE from carrying out their duty or making it at least harder.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/17/714306744/despite-pressure-from-trump-house-democrats-see-no-urgency-to-pass-a-border-bill?t=1564192611116

All a ploy by the Democrats to pander to minority voting groups...? 

[leicsmac]

57 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

1'500 out of three million cannot be called "excessive". Seriously.

 

Original percentage amended.  Doesn't change much, the likelihood of you getting wrongfully arrested as a US Citizen is still phenomenally small.

The real issues lie somewhere completely else.

Don't blame the messenger, you ought to look at the ones writing the message, the ones preventing ICE from carrying out their duty or making it at least harder.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/17/714306744/despite-pressure-from-trump-house-democrats-see-no-urgency-to-pass-a-border-bill?t=1564192611116

All a ploy by the Democrats to pander to minority voting groups...? 

If the Dems believe that funding border control in the way that ICE does is problematic to their own worldview, then they're well within their rights to block the aforementioned funding. Again, it doesn't mean that they're not in favour of border control per se. Also, I wasn't aware there was anything wrong with "pandering" to minority voting groups (that being said my own viewpoint is when you cut someone in half down the middle everyone looks the same, though I know many many other people think otherwise and as they seem to be the majority their perception of reality supersedes mine).

 

It's not just the mistaken identity fiascos that happen with ICE that I find excessive and objectionable - the whole ethos appears to be degradation of human beings for its own sake as a means to deter others from seeking to cross the border. If folks believe that the ends justify the means, then fair enough - I disagree.

[WigstonWanderer]

8 hours ago, lifted*fox said:

 

DEMOCRACY!

Frightening. Joseph Goebbels would be truly impressed.

[Kopfkino]

8 hours ago, BlueSi13 said:

The UK parliament has already done that in the form of the Brady Amendment which proposes finding alternatives to the Irish backstop.  This is the only proposal/plan that has found a majority in the House of Commons.

 

Considering that the current backstop has been rejected three times, that Parliament (and now new Prime Minister) has expressed a desire to see it renegotiated and that the EU are so far unwilling to consider it.  I fail to see how the ball isn't in their court?

 

 

Yeah and the UK has failed to provide any workable solutions under the alternative arrangements guide and it'd be naive to think the civil service hasn't been working on it for the last 3 years. It's classic UK talking at the EU and without an actual plan for it then how is the ball in the EU's courts, it's still up to the UK to present a workable solution.

 

But if viable alternative arrangements can be developed then the backstop becomes obsolete so why worry about the backstop being in the WA? It surely shouldn't matter.

[Carl the Llama]

14 hours ago, Innovindil said:

I'm sorry, really I am, but wtf dude. 

Were you involved in the pre-referendum thread? Happened to me on a regular basis in there, got very bored of explaining that pointing out a thing's existence isn't the same as saying it's true for everybody.

[Finnegan]

JRM. What a nob.

[Rain King]

8 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

JRM. What a nob.

Nob esq.

[lifted*fox]

again, someone actually involved in the social media manipulation, talking openly about the underhand tactics used (and even admitting they went too far). 

 

who's stepping up to defend this one then?