Tolerant,Peaceful,Liberal Hillary supporters.....

[Northern Monkey]

Zlt_fXJC8K0

[Black Dagger]

Not this cockwomble again.

[Northern Monkey]

This 'cock womble':joker: has some valid points in this video and all the footage of these peaceful and tolerant liberals is there to see in plain sight.

[Tom4784]

He's an idiot that caters to the lowest common denominator.

Anyone who uses the phrase 'butt hurt leftists' in their video title isn't going to present a balanced argument worth discussing.

[jet]

He omitted to mention the other side of the coin and quote the tolerant, peaceful, liberal President elect inciting his supporters to violence - "Beat the crap out of them, I'll pay for the lawsuit, I promise'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCkQbASQWF0

[Jamie89]

Not this cockwomble again.
:joker:

[rk3388]

I am an extremely tolerant and peaceful person...

That is EXCACTLY why I will never be tolerant of Trump's offensive views on Muslim, MExican and Syrian people. That is why I will NEVER be tolerant of his ignorance of environmental protection and climate change action. That's why I will NEVER be tolerant of the destruction of the middle class he is planning by lowering taxes for those that do not have any business paying less than they already do.

[rk3388]

So tired of these political posts that don't have anything to do with actual policies, just attacking "Butt-hurt Liberals" - I truly feel sorry for the people using this term on Facebook and youtube, they really need to pick up a book and learn something.

[Johnnyuk123]

The violence shown in that video is quite shocking. He makes some really great points.

[Crimson Dynamo]

He's an idiot that caters to the lowest common denominator.

Anyone who uses the phrase 'butt hurt leftists' in their video title isn't going to present a balanced argument worth discussing.


How do you now who his audience is?


If you have details please provide them here

[Brillopad]

He's an idiot that caters to the lowest common denominator.

Anyone who uses the phrase 'butt hurt leftists' in their video title isn't going to present a balanced argument worth discussing.

Anyone who uses words such has as 'bigot/racist' aren't going to present an argument worth discussing.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Anyone who uses words such has as 'bigot/racist' aren't going to present an argument worth discussing.

:clap1:

[Johnnyuk123]

Anyone who uses words such has as 'bigot/racist' aren't going to present an argument worth discussing.

I agree, i would also add that it detracts from the debate rather than adds to it. What purpose does it serve in a debate?
I don't see one tbh. It also prevents those more moderate posters from joining in for fear of being called silly names too, simply because they have a different point of view.
If we are honest then for debate to work we have to add something of substance on the issue in question, we also have to be prepared to listen
to other peoples point of view that we may not even agree with, if you can't at the very least allow the debate to flow without getting aggressive toward a posters post, well then.... that should tell you something... it tells you that you have lost your argument if nothing else.

[Brillopad]

So tired of these political posts that don't have anything to do with actual policies, just attacking "Butt-hurt Liberals" - I truly feel sorry for the people using this term on Facebook and youtube, they really need to pick up a book and learn something.

That's exactly how people feel about those attacking ' bigots'. One has become a knee-jerk reaction to the other. Consequences.

[Brillopad]

He's an idiot that caters to the lowest common denominator.

Anyone who uses the phrase 'butt hurt leftists' in their video title isn't going to present a balanced argument worth discussing.

No he caters against the lowest common denominator as clearly seen in that video - peaceful demonstration my ar?? Maybe we didn't really see that, just a figment of our 'bigoted' imaginations!

Boy, losing an election/public vote really does show people's true colours! Exactly who are the 'scum' - can't possibly be those violent black people pummelling the hell out of people whose crime was to vote for Trump. Oh the irony!

As I dared to mention a certain word I await the inevitable predicable insults.

[MB.]

-"let's not call people silly names so we can have a proper argument!"-
-calls Hillary supporters scum-

[Brillopad]

-"let's not call people silly names so we can have a proper argument!"-
-calls Hillary supporters scum-

But it's ok to call Trump supporters scum. :shrug:

[Cherie]

Anyone who uses words such has as 'bigot/racist' aren't going to present an argument worth discussing.

:laugh: So typical.

And if I responded to a post on Corbyn which incorporated a video, with:

"He's an idiot that caters to the lowest common denominator".

It would no doubt be interpreted as 'insulting members' and 'baiting', and I would be punished.

Tell me I'm wrong.


:clap1:

[Crimson Dynamo]

-"let's not call people silly names so we can have a proper argument!"-
-calls Hillary supporters scum-

when did he?

[Northern Monkey]

:laugh: So typical.

And if I responded to a post on Corbyn which incorporated a video, with:

"He's an idiot that caters to the lowest common denominator".

It would no doubt be interpreted as 'insulting members' and 'baiting', and I would be punished.

Tell me I'm wrong.
True

[Northern Monkey]

No he caters against the lowest common denominator as clearly seen in that video - peaceful demonstration my ar?? Maybe we didn't really see that, just a figment of our 'bigoted' imaginations!

Boy, losing an election/public vote really does show people's true colours! Exactly who are the 'scum' - can't possibly be those violent black people pummelling the hell out of people whose crime was to vote for Trump. Oh the irony!

As I dared to mention a certain word I await the inevitable predicable insults.

:clap1:

[arista]

Not this cockwomble again.


I do not Want HIS Cock



I want him live on
CNN HD
Ch4HD News / Ch5HD News 5PM
SkyNewsHD / BBCnewsHD / RT HD
FoxNewsHD/ GMB HD itv/
ITVnewsHD 10PM/ BBC2HD Newsnight
EuroNews/ France24 engl./





Yes FELLA
Feck THE NaziLiberals

[arista]

He's an idiot that caters to the lowest common denominator.

Anyone who uses the phrase 'butt hurt leftists' in their video title isn't going to present a balanced argument worth discussing.


NO
Dezzy, look at the PUNK smashing the Electric Cabinet
and the Nice Lady getting Punched up



Dezzy That criminal Stinks
I would DECK him

[Tom4784]

Anyone who uses words such has as 'bigot/racist' aren't going to present an argument worth discussing.

Well. no.

'Loony leftists' and all the immature stock phrases are nothing like Bigot/Racist. The former is an insult, the latter is not. If someone displays racist or bigoted comments then they are a racist and a bigot. Sometimes a spade is a ****ing spade.

Comments like 'Loony Left' serve no purpose. Your whole argument is hypocritical and flawed.

No he caters against the lowest common denominator as clearly seen in that video - peaceful demonstration my ar?? Maybe we didn't really see that, just a figment of our 'bigoted' imaginations!

Boy, losing an election/public vote really does show people's true colours! Exactly who are the 'scum' - can't possibly be those violent black people pummelling the hell out of people whose crime was to vote for Trump. Oh the irony!

As I dared to mention a certain word I await the inevitable predicable insults.

Commentators like him are trash because they'll zone in on small incidents and make out that that's what the left is like because it suits his agenda. The same happens on the left side too but I'd never link to videos like that since they are as trash as the sentient wart in the video that's linked.

There's little to say when the discussion is focused around an obviously biased source.

Taking one small incident that was carried out by a bunch of idiots and acting like that's how the left acts is incredibly silly and ruins any credibility your point might have had.

[Kizzy]

I'm about to watch, but if butthurt infers that every rational, fair minded American feels they have been shagged up the arse then I'd say it was pretty apt.

[Northern Monkey]

I'm about to watch, but if butthurt infers that every rational, fair minded American feels they have been shagged up the arse then I'd say it was pretty apt.
:joker:

[Kizzy]

His argument centres predominantly around the behaviour of 11yr olds... again very apt.
The repetition of certain phrases 'extremist leftist violence' ' social justice warriors' they are mantras that are taking hold in so called civilised society, even though those who espouse these affirmations have no clue they by adopting these they are subscribing to an ideology that is against everything that our culture and identity is built on...

[Crimson Dynamo]

His argument centres predominantly around the behaviour of 11yr olds... again very apt.
The repetition of certain phrases 'extremist leftist violence' ' social justice warriors' they are mantras that are taking hold in so called civilised society, even though those who espouse these affirmations have no clue they by adopting these they are subscribing to an ideology that is against everything that our culture and identity is built on...

its not built on people ignoring terrorism for the sake of worrying whether some people will "be offended"

[Kizzy]

its not built on people ignoring terrorism for the sake of worrying whether some people will "be offended"

That never happened, terrorism of any kind has never been ignored :/

[Brillopad]

His argument centres predominantly around the behaviour of 11yr olds... again very apt.
The repetition of certain phrases 'extremist leftist violence' ' social justice warriors' they are mantras that are taking hold in so called civilised society, even though those who espouse these affirmations have no clue they by adopting these they are subscribing to an ideology that is against everything that our culture and identity is built on...

There are many coming into our country intent on abusing our culture and eroding our identity, which is why we cannot blindly just continue to be the tolerant and accepting society we have been in the past.

If we continue to do so, without question, the culture and identity we all take for granted will disappear and be replaced with something a lot less tolerant. If you don't care about that, others do. There has to be a limit. I would like to think my children and grandchildren will always have the same freedoms.

[_Tom_]

"When they go low, we go hi—" ....oh

[Northern Monkey]

They're all here...'**** Trump' signs,balaclavas,Communist flags,The interviewer gets his crotch grabbed by a protester who runs off after,He gets called 'racist' and 'homophobic'
:joker: :joker: :joker:
FuCaDe-G38Q

[Tom4784]

'Liberal Trump Protesters Go FULL ****** MODE - Nationwide Trump Protests - TRIGGERED SJW, BLM TARDS'

Hmm.

[Maru]

They're all here...'**** Trump' signs,balaclavas,Communist flags,The interviewer gets his crotch grabbed by a protester who runs off after,He gets called 'racist' and 'homophobic'
:joker: :joker: :joker:
FuCaDe-G38Q

Dat great display font

This font represents the unparalleled strength of one man who saved an entire world from the crushing yoke of tyranny. This man was an outstanding captain of men, an American patriot of unquestionable calibre. And within this font is captured his fighting spirit, his unyielding determination. This face is dedicated to him, the captain America knows and respects, the captain American font designers like myself have strived to symbolize in their work.

http://thefontry.com/americancaptain

Someone at home probably googled "Fonts that make me look like a badass American"... oh, a Captain America font?... just perfect.

[Kizzy]

There are many coming into our country intent on abusing our culture and eroding our identity, which is why we cannot blindly just continue to be the tolerant and accepting society we have been in the past.

If we continue to do so, without question, the culture and identity we all take for granted will disappear and be replaced with something a lot less tolerant. If you don't care about that, others do. There has to be a limit. I would like to think my children and grandchildren will always have the same freedoms.

If I don't care for your foreshadowing?... No I don't to be fair.
So the answer is to be intolerant now to save being uber intolerant in the future?
Sorry that sounds ludicrous.

[Ammi]

He omitted to mention the other side of the coin and quote the tolerant, peaceful, liberal President elect inciting his supporters to violence - "Beat the crap out of them, I'll pay for the lawsuit, I promise'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCkQbASQWF0

..that's the thing though isn't it jet..I only watched the first few moments of the vid because I've seen his vids before and they're obviously all slanted in his own thoughts and that's fine, I mean that's what we would expect and the same for anyone etc...some 'reporting' slanted toward Trump and support for him and some slanted toward Hilary and support for her through all of this election process...but the election now is done and dusted and vids like this..(on either camp..)...are only going to incite, they're going to incite hostility and negativity so (whichever won..)...is that going to make for a coming together/positive future etc and a moving forward...in the first few moments her behaviour was awful and wrong and I hope she's facing charges..but when these things are filmed, they should be only sent to the police in my opinion so those charges can be made and so people are faced with the full justice for their actions.../not placed on YouTube to incite...that really is a reverse of anything progressive or anything positive...we don't need to have these propaganda things to know there are a few very grim people/whatever their politics who will behave awfully and violently...someone acts/someone uses to incite with..both equally awful...

[empire]

hillary supporters fail to understand that her election campaign was doomed from the start, she did not lose because shes a woman, but she lost because shes well, hillary clinton, many voters who lived in the bill clinton administration, know how he ruined americas economy in the future, and they did not want to put another clinton in the white house, hillary supporters thought she would win dispite the huge low turn out at her rallies, they would hang on to every word that she would say,they would think that even the pro gun right voters would vote for her, and they are the sort who would believe in what the media would tell them,

[Ammi]

..just looking at some of the titles of Paul Watson's vids../again not really watching but just seeing the titles...'Fat Ginger Feminist Attacks'...so he really does just promote and incite prejudices and intolerances in people, kind of ironic eh when people have voted on worries and concerns etc and not on intolerances and prejudices...even the majority of Trump supporters I would say would take a huge offence to him as being in any way representative of them for anything positive they might feel in a Trump presidency.../awful guy making an income out of this inciting as well...

[Ammi]

hillary supporters fail to understand that her election campaign was doomed from the start, she did not lose because shes a woman, but she lost because shes well, hillary clinton, many voters who lived in the bill clinton administration, know how he ruined americas economy in the future, and they did not want to put another clinton in the white house, hillary supporters thought she would win dispite the huge low turn out at her rallies, they would hang on to every word that she would say,they would think that even the pro gun right voters would vote for her, and they are the sort who would believe in what the media would tell them,

..yeah I do agree with that which is why she has no supporters on the forum so far as I can see.../I've never seen one anyway...

[user104658]

To be honest, I think Russell Brand in his "trews" on it actually sums it up in a very balanced way, and the only really reasonable way to look at any of it without pretending that Donald Trump, "that guy off the American Apprentice", being the president of the United States isn't just ****ing barmy.

Anyway, for those who haven't seen it, he basically talks about how something like this happening was inevitable. That Trump now BEING president isn't surprising, shocking, or the start of some massive pile of problems... it is the inevitable outcome of the last few decades of politics. It's not a "new" problem, it's simply the same problem that has been festering away for years, suddenly being shoved into the light of day for all to see.

Clinton would have been a disaster. Trump will probably be a disaster. Pretend otherwise all you want - the simple truth is, that the real absolute ****ing disaster is that we've reached the point where these two were ever candidates at all. The result of a completely broken system that doesn't really work for anyone any more. The Clintons have been a large part of that system. Pretending that DONALD TRUMP is the man up to the task of fixing that system is utterly insane... he isn't and he won't, he may well break it further in trying. The only real positive here is that (again, as Brand says) it is surely no longer possible to ignore or deny the fact that politics, across the entire world really, has become an absolute shambles... and THAT might finally set us on the path to doing something about it, within the NEXT few decades. With new, hopeful faces at the front.

[Niamh.]

To be honest, I think Russell Brand in his "trews" on it actually sums it up in a very balanced way, and the only really reasonable way to look at any of it without pretending that Donald Trump, "that guy off the American Apprentice", being the president of the United States isn't just ****ing barmy.

Anyway, for those who haven't seen it, he basically talks about how something like this happening was inevitable. That Trump now BEING president isn't surprising, shocking, or the start of some massive pile of problems... it is the inevitable outcome of the last few decades of politics. It's not a "new" problem, it's simply the same problem that has been festering away for years, suddenly being shoved into the light of day for all to see.

Clinton would have been a disaster. Trump will probably be a disaster. Pretend otherwise all you want - the simple truth is, that the real absolute ****ing disaster is that we've reached the point where these two were ever candidates at all. The result of a completely broken system that doesn't really work for anyone any more. The Clintons have been a large part of that system. Pretending that DONALD TRUMP is the man up to the task of fixing that system is utterly insane... he isn't and he won't, he may well break it further in trying. The only real positive here is that (again, as Brand says) it is surely no longer possible to ignore or deny the fact that politics, across the entire world really, has become an absolute shambles... and THAT might finally set us on the path to doing something about it, within the NEXT few decades. With new, hopeful faces at the front.

Yeah, I love Russell Brand, i don't care what anyone says, he talks so much sense.... .in my very humble opinion of course

[Northern Monkey]

To be honest, I think Russell Brand in his "trews" on it actually sums it up in a very balanced way, and the only really reasonable way to look at any of it without pretending that Donald Trump, "that guy off the American Apprentice", being the president of the United States isn't just ****ing barmy.

Anyway, for those who haven't seen it, he basically talks about how something like this happening was inevitable. That Trump now BEING president isn't surprising, shocking, or the start of some massive pile of problems... it is the inevitable outcome of the last few decades of politics. It's not a "new" problem, it's simply the same problem that has been festering away for years, suddenly being shoved into the light of day for all to see.

Clinton would have been a disaster. Trump will probably be a disaster. Pretend otherwise all you want - the simple truth is, that the real absolute ****ing disaster is that we've reached the point where these two were ever candidates at all. The result of a completely broken system that doesn't really work for anyone any more. The Clintons have been a large part of that system. Pretending that DONALD TRUMP is the man up to the task of fixing that system is utterly insane... he isn't and he won't, he may well break it further in trying. The only real positive here is that (again, as Brand says) it is surely no longer possible to ignore or deny the fact that politics, across the entire world really, has become an absolute shambles... and THAT might finally set us on the path to doing something about it, within the NEXT few decades. With new, hopeful faces at the front.Can't argue with that.

[Ammi]

Can't argue with that.

...go on just for the fun of it../it's TS, he likes a good argument...:laugh:..

[Ammi]

To be honest, I think Russell Brand in his "trews" on it actually sums it up in a very balanced way, and the only really reasonable way to look at any of it without pretending that Donald Trump, "that guy off the American Apprentice", being the president of the United States isn't just ****ing barmy.

Anyway, for those who haven't seen it, he basically talks about how something like this happening was inevitable. That Trump now BEING president isn't surprising, shocking, or the start of some massive pile of problems... it is the inevitable outcome of the last few decades of politics. It's not a "new" problem, it's simply the same problem that has been festering away for years, suddenly being shoved into the light of day for all to see.

Clinton would have been a disaster. Trump will probably be a disaster. Pretend otherwise all you want - the simple truth is, that the real absolute ****ing disaster is that we've reached the point where these two were ever candidates at all. The result of a completely broken system that doesn't really work for anyone any more. The Clintons have been a large part of that system. Pretending that DONALD TRUMP is the man up to the task of fixing that system is utterly insane... he isn't and he won't, he may well break it further in trying. The only real positive here is that (again, as Brand says) it is surely no longer possible to ignore or deny the fact that politics, across the entire world really, has become an absolute shambles... and THAT might finally set us on the path to doing something about it, within the NEXT few decades. With new, hopeful faces at the front.


..I agree thought that it's a build up of many things and a thing that something has to give ..I mean I know that many think 'PC' and a result of not being able to express etc and that could be contributory but it's not the 'society problem' because it isn't just one problem, it's that problems and issues haven't been addressed by governments so they lead to more issues and more issues and more issues and etc...and so the result of these collective things...and Youtubers like this one for me are so contributory as well because things are so much taken on 'face value' I think so what's looked at mostly is the behaviour in the vid and that it's an 'anti Trump' person..so anti Trump people are pretty awful and hostile/violent etc...(well I'm sue some are/as are some Trumpeteers because that's individual grim people in spite of political leanings not because of...but what he's contributing and inflaming with his vids is intolerance.../the very thing he seems to find not ok.../you just can't make this stuff up really and it is I think very much contributing to some negativity in society as well...

[Northern Monkey]

...go on just for the fun of it../it's TS, he likes a good argument...:laugh:..

He's too clever for that:laugh:

[rk3388]

Just wondering what you guys would have thought on a Bernie Sanders presidency ?
I personally do not like Hillary I just thought she was the lesser of the two evils

[Cherie]

Just wondering what you guys would have thought on a Bernie Sanders presidency ?
I personally do not like Hillary I just thought she was the lesser of the two evils

He was a better candidate than Hilary, it's inexplicable that she was chosen over him, well it isn't some wheels were greased to make it happen I think

[joeysteele]

He was a better candidate than Hilary, it's inexplicable that she was chosen over him, well it isn't some wheels were greased to make it happen I think

I don't know,I think she won the primaries fair and square.

Bernie Sanders would have been a good candidate too, no doubt about that.
Had I lived in a State in the USA and had a vote in the primary selection contests, I would have still voted for Hillary in them over Bernie though,and certainly for Hillary at any time over Trump in the main election.

However in the primaries, the votes are split % wise as to what each candidate gets so Bernie had the chance, he also did well and convincingly won a good few States too.

In the end for Democrats, experience was likely the factor for most when voting for their candidate and that is something Hillary had enormous amounts of.

Anyway, in my own view,I think she won the nomination process fairly.

[empire]

trump knows how the world economy works, he is not dumb, and he just puts on an act on tv, but he won't be doing that in the white house, trump could see how america was being sold out and he did not like what he was seeing, there was no way that car and plane factory workers would vote for hillary when she was going to sell their jobs aboard, under hillary, the unemployed numbers would increase, her free college policy would cost billions, and the country can't afford it.

[the truth]

I don't know,I think she won the primaries fair and square.

Bernie Sanders would have been a good candidate too, no doubt about that.
Had I lived in a State in the USA and had a vote in the primary selection contests, I would have still voted for Hillary in them over Bernie though,and certainly for Hillary at any time over Trump in the main election.

However in the primaries, the votes are split % wise as to what each candidate gets so Bernie had the chance, he also did well and convincingly won a good few States too.

In the end for Democrats, experience was likely the factor for most when voting for their candidate and that is something Hillary had enormous amounts of.

Anyway, in my own view,I think she won the nomination process fairly.

she really didnt, many states werent even voted on they were just given to hilary but other politicians

[joeysteele]

she really didnt, many states werent even voted on they were just given to hilary but other politicians

I cannot agree and Bernie Sanders would have kicked off if that was the case,with even a hint of real unfairness, he was in with an outside chance.

For me at least,my view, she won the selection for nomination to run fair and square, and while maybe it was a bit more about respect for her efforts from the Democrats,(that even Mr Trump is on about now in his current sudden change of heart and his lauding of her),however still as valid a result for her as has been the case for all before her.

Equally so, despite the Republicans wishing Trump would disappear near all through the Republican primaries, his selection for them was equally won fair and square too.

[the truth]

I cannot agree and Bernie Sanders would have kicked off if that was the case,with even a hint of real unfairness, he was in with an outside chance.

For me at least,my view, she won the selection for nomination to run fair and square, and while maybe it was a bit more about respect for her efforts from the Democrats,(that even Mr Trump is on about now in his current sudden change of heart and his lauding of her),however still as valid a result for her as has been the case for all before her.

Equally so, despite the Republicans wishing Trump would disappear near all through the Republican primaries, his selection for them was equally won fair and square too.

Eh? He did kick off and his supporters went berserk and rightly so, the entire clinton democratic campaign was incredibly corrupt with many states rigged with no votes and of coruse the super delegates...her massive network of workers and supporters also slandered bernie throughout as a sexist mysoginist, absolutely disgusting people.

[kirklancaster]

Sorry Joey but The Truth is absolutely correct. The Clinton campaign has been one of the most CORRUPT in American political history - not only against Trump, but well before that, against fellow Democrat rival Bernie Sanders.

I am very surprised that is is not common knowledge after the 20,000 leaked Democratic National Committee emails spanning January 2015 to May 2016, which were made available to the public by Wikileaks.

The DNC apologised to Bernie Sanders for this Email Scandal.

These emails clearly prove how DNC staff - who are supposed to work equitably on behalf of ALL Democrat candidates - plotted AGAINST Bernie Sanders to ensure that Clinton got the nomination.

These 'Dirty Tricks' included a scheme with corrupt 'pro-Hillary' media collaborators, to undermine Sanders standing with Christian Democrats by wrongly portraying him in the media as; an 'ATHEIST'.

The Chairwoman of The Democratic Party - Debbie Wasserman Schultz - resigned from her position after she was proved to have sent an email during the run up to the Primary Election in which she pledged that Bernie; "would NOT be president."

Another scandal concerned a corroborated report, that instead of apportioning funds raised equally to all the Democratic Candidates as it should have, the DNC’s fundraising committee was instead, laundering money to the Clinton campaign.

Against the rules, DNC officials conspired BEFORE the Primaries even started, to "disproportionately endorse Clinton" against Sanders, and throughout the Primaries, those same officials plotted to "help Clinton build and maintain a lead over Sanders".

All the way through, the Democratic Party deliberately hid and downplayed Clinton's many scandals and "shortfalls" to ensure that more votes were cast for her than Sanders.

This conspiracy by the DNC, meant, that in effect, poor Bernie was not only running against Clinton, but the entire Democratic Establishment.

But the above is only the tip of a very large rotten iceberg, when it comes to HC's Campaign of Corruption, because there is the scandalous case of voter irregularities and voter suppression in New York.

It is very telling, that old Bernie had won seven of the last nine Democratic primaries, and that the two he lost to Clinton were subject of "massive voter irregularities" - which in the overwhelming majority of cases, disadvantaged Bernie supporters and not Hillary devotees.

These included:

a) In New York, 126,000 people were mysteriously removed from the Voter's Register in Brooklyn (where Bernie was born and raised) Despite being registered in October, on election day their names and details had mysteriously been removed without trace.

b) Another 60,000 Brooklyn Democrats had their registrations mysteriously changed to Republican so they couldn’t vote for Bernie.

It's telling that these deletions and alterations were made "AFTER the April 1 deadline for voters to make these modifications, themselves", so, Someone else HAD to have altered these registrations in secret without the voters knowledge.

c) Nearly one third of the Democrats throughout New York who went to vote, found their registrations had been changed, making those Democrats - the GREAT majority of whom were Sanders supporters - ineligible to vote.

It has been calculated, that HAD these voters been counted, the state would probably have gone Bernie.

Not only did Bernie Sanders 'go ballistic' on public record' at all this corruption against him, there are also currently, numerous high profile court cases in place stemming from it all.

Finally Joey, there is the mystery of just why, at 8:30 pm on the day of The Primaries, just over an hour after the polls closed, with hundreds of people still WAITING to vote, and with less than one percent of precincts reporting the results, the Associated Press declared Hillary Clinton the winner.

Could it be that by deceitfully prematurely declaring Clinton the winner, any Bernie voters still queuing to vote, would think; "No point waiting in the cold. He's already lost" and then GO HOME?

If the FULL truth about crooked Hillary was really known by those saying she is "the lesser of two evils" - they might not be saying it. Because, CLEARLY, the corrupt bitch isn't.

In my opinion.

[Northern Monkey]

Sorry Joey but The Truth is absolutely correct. The Clinton campaign has been one of the most CORRUPT in American political history - not only against Trump, but well before that, against fellow Democrat rival Bernie Sanders.

I am very surprised that is is not common knowledge after the 20,000 leaked Democratic National Committee emails spanning January 2015 to May 2016, which were made available to the public by Wikileaks.

The DNC apologised to Bernie Sanders for this Email Scandal.

These emails clearly prove how DNC staff - who are supposed to work equitably on behalf of ALL Democrat candidates - plotted AGAINST Bernie Sanders to ensure that Clinton got the nomination.

These 'Dirty Tricks' included a scheme with corrupt 'pro-Hillary' media collaborators, to undermine Sanders standing with Christian Democrats by wrongly portraying him in the media as; an 'ATHEIST'.

The Chairwoman of The Democratic Party - Debbie Wasserman Schultz - resigned from her position after she was proved to have sent an email during the run up to the Primary Election in which she pledged that Bernie; "would NOT be president."

Another scandal concerned a corroborated report, that instead of apportioning funds raised equally to all the Democratic Candidates as it should have, the DNC’s fundraising committee was instead, laundering money to the Clinton campaign.

Against the rules, DNC officials conspired BEFORE the Primaries even started, to "disproportionately endorse Clinton" against Sanders, and throughout the Primaries, those same officials plotted to "help Clinton build and maintain a lead over Sanders".

All the way through, the Democratic Party deliberately hid and downplayed Clinton's many scandals and "shortfalls" to ensure that more votes were cast for her than Sanders.

This conspiracy by the DNC, meant, that in effect, poor Bernie was not only running against Clinton, but the entire Democratic Establishment.

But the above is only the tip of a very large rotten iceberg, when it comes to HC's Campaign of Corruption, because there is the scandalous case of voter irregularities and voter suppression in New York.

It is very telling, that old Bernie had won seven of the last nine Democratic primaries, and that the two he lost to Clinton were subject of "massive voter irregularities" - which in the overwhelming majority of cases, disadvantaged Bernie supporters and not Hillary devotees.

These included:

a) In New York, 126,000 people were mysteriously removed from the Voter's Register in Brooklyn (where Bernie was born and raised) Despite being registered in October, on election day their names and details had mysteriously been removed without trace.

b) Another 60,000 Brooklyn Democrats had their registrations mysteriously changed to Republican so they couldn’t vote for Bernie.

It's telling that these deletions and alterations were made "AFTER the April 1 deadline for voters to make these modifications, themselves", so, Someone else HAD to have altered these registrations in secret without the voters knowledge.

c) Nearly one third of the Democrats throughout New York who went to vote, found their registrations had been changed, making those Democrats - the GREAT majority of whom were Sanders supporters - ineligible to vote.

It has been calculated, that HAD these voters been counted, the state would probably have gone Bernie.

Not only did Bernie Sanders 'go ballistic' on public record' at all this corruption against him, there are also currently, numerous high profile court cases in place stemming from it all.

Finally Joey, there is the mystery of just why, at 8:30 pm on the day of The Primaries, just over an hour after the polls closed, with hundreds of people still WAITING to vote, and with less than one percent of precincts reporting the results, the Associated Press declared Hillary Clinton the winner.

Could it be that by deceitfully prematurely declaring Clinton the winner, any Bernie voters still queuing to vote, would think; "No point waiting in the cold. He's already lost" and then GO HOME?

If the FULL truth about crooked Hillary was really known by those saying she is "the lesser of two evils" - they might not be saying it. Because, CLEARLY, the corrupt bitch isn't.

In my opinion.Very interesting:thumbs:

[joeysteele]

Eh? He did kick off and his supporters went berserk and rightly so, the entire clinton democratic campaign was incredibly corrupt with many states rigged with no votes and of coruse the super delegates...her massive network of workers and supporters also slandered bernie throughout as a sexist mysoginist, absolutely disgusting people.

I heard some pretty disgusting things from Trump and his supporters, neither has the moral ground on this one I'm afraid.

There have always been the super delegates votes too and please, anyone to think Hillary Clinton was not going to be the one to walk in New York is misguided.

What is being revealed above is the Democratic Party's way of doing the primaries, that both indeed all candidates knew and accepted.
It may well have many failings however that really has little or nothing at all to do with Hillary Clinton, that was how it was set up.

The Republicans too were looking at if they could have even barred Trump were he to win enough primaries.
Had his winf or nomination from the primaries been much tighter, they may well have done something too to avoid him as their candidate.
It appears both have problems as to the make up of the whole electoral process of candidates.

It seems to me the system in the USA, is now outdated for the modern times and all of it, primaries and the distribution of the electoral college votes system now needs a massive overhaul.

So I do not accept that she was corrupt in the election process at all, the primaries and election were fought under the rules.
While instances may have occurred that expose the failings of the whole electoral system for both parties in USA elections as to nominations and te election itself.
To use that as another stick just to get at Clinton because some intensely dislike her does not carry weight with me and in my view again, I say, both won their nomination fairly and squarely in my view yet again, under the systems in place.

As for wikileaks, well there is another desperate to have destroyed Clinton too and perhaps that would carry more weight too if its leader properly submitted himself to answer his own allegations and possible charges first.

No, for me, both candidates won fairly their right to be candidates but I would say the whole USA system for elections is failing the USA really now, rather than bringing out the very best of candidates.

[the truth]

I heard some pretty disgusting things from Trump and his supporters, neither has the moral ground on this one I'm afraid.

There have always been the super delegates votes too and please, anyone to think Hillary Clinton was not going to be the one to walk in New York is misguided.

What is being revealed above is the Democratic Party's way of doing the primaries, that both indeed all candidates knew and accepted.
It may well have many failings however that really has little or nothing at all to do with Hillary Clinton, that was how it was set up.

The Republicans too were looking at if they could have even barred Trump were he to win enough primaries.
Had his winf or nomination from the primaries been much tighter, they may well have done something too to avoid him as their candidate.
It appears both have problems as to the make up of the whole electoral process of candidates.

It seems to me the system in the USA, is not outdated for the modern times and all of it, primaries and the distribution of the electoral college votes system now needs a massive overhaul.

So I do not accept that she was corrupt in the election process at all, the primaries and election were fought under the rules.
While instances may have occurred that expose the failings of the whole electoral system for both parties in USA elections as to nominations and te election itself.
To use that as another stick just to get at Clinton because some intensely dislike her does not carry weight with me and in my view again, I say, both won their nomination fairly and squarely in my view yet again, under the systems in place.

As for wikileaks, well there is another desperate to have destroyed Clinton too and perhaps that would carry more weight too if its leader properly submitted himself to answer his own allegations and possible charges first.

No, for me, both candidates won fairly their right to be candidates but I would say the whole USA system for elections is failing the USA really now, rather than bringing out the very best of candidates.

She was corrupt throughout as were a vats number of democrats. The proof is staggering and how she didnt go to jail for the email scandal beggars belief. The entire process subverted the democratic process. Sanders was a fantastic candidate, totally robbed and discriminated against by a stinking corrupt party and horrifically corrupt politician.

[joeysteele]

She was corrupt throughout as were a vats number of democrats. The proof is staggering and how she didnt go to jail for the email scandal beggars belief. The entire process subverted the democratic process. Sanders was a fantastic candidate, totally robbed and discriminated against by a stinking corrupt party and horrifically corrupt politician.

Oh dear, look the FBI have now looked into the e mails twice at least and declared. 'nothing criminal' occurred.

You simply detest Hillary Clinton and will therefore blame her for just about everything,that dos not make it so.
On the emails she has been cleared of any criminal action.
You did not see them, the FBI did.

She came through to be nominated as candidate for President, in the system set in place.
You can criticise the system, which I do,however to throw all at the door of one person in a whole electoral process is really off the mark.

I get you detest her,however just because you do does not make her always wrong, just as my sort of liking for her does not make her always right too.

You are now getting at the party and you say the system was rigged, well Sanders would have seen that at the start too, he stayed there right until the end of it and was doing well too.
He also despite whatever his reservations may have been through the party process, he then solidly backed Hillary Clinton for President.

Blame the party system,yes that is fair however it was much closer than expected as to who won the nomination.
Putting all the blame of the female candidate is less so, for both her and Sanders, it is their party's failings as to a right system of choosing candidates, not theirs.
They had to fight through the system in place and did right to the end.
No individuals fault at all, it is the Democratic party's fault, if there are faults.

[the truth]

Oh dear, look the FBI have now looked into the e mails twice at least and declared. 'nothing criminal' occurred.

You simply detest Hillary Clinton and will therefore blame her for just about everything,that dos not make it so.
On the emails she has been cleared of any criminal action.
You did not see them, the FBI did.

She came through to be nominated as candidate for President, in the system set in place.
You can criticise the system, which I do,however to throw all at the door of one person in a whole electoral process is really off the mark.

I get you detest her,however just because you do does not make her always wrong, just as my sort of liking for her does not make her always right too.

You are now getting at the party and you say the system was rigged, well Sanders would have seen that at the start too, he stayed there right until the end of it and was doing well too.
He also despite whatever his reservations may have been through the party process, he then solidly backed Hillary Clinton fro President.

Blame the party system,yes that is fair however it was much closer than expected as to who won the nomination and that does.
Putting all the blame of the female candidate is less so, for both her and Sanders, it is their party's failings as to a right system of choosing candidates, not theirs.
They had to fight through the system in place and did right to the end.
No individuals fault at all, it is the Democratic party's fault, if there are faults.

There is absolute proof of the total corruption of Hilary and of the democratic partys anti democratic corruption in cheating Bernie sanders. The fact you choose to ignore the vast amount of evidence of corruption, vote rigging is frankly disturbing. Not to forget the slander her team spread about a fantastic bloke like bernie sanders. Its purely down to his good character that he still chose to fight on and fight against the republicans. Heads have already rolled for the corruption and more will follow.

[joeysteele]

There is absolute proof of the total corruption of Hilary and of the democratic partys anti democratic corruption in cheating Bernie sanders. The fact you choose to ignore the vast amount of evidence of corruption, vote rigging is frankly disturbing. Not to forget the slander her team spread about a fantastic bloke like bernie sanders. Its purely down to his good character that he still chose to fight on and fight against the republicans. Heads have already rolled for the corruption and more will follow.

I choose to ignore nothing, I simply do not agree.

No point in going round in circles.
What this USA election has shown me is that something is wrong with the whole system but candidates can only operate in the system their Party puts in place.

In all elections, even ours mud slinging and even borderline slander goes on.
Sanders then campaigned fro Clinton and did not need to if he really was as angry about anything as you make out.
Many major republicans, not liking Trump, stopped canvassing for him to win.
I am sure Bernie could and would have expressed his disapproval the same way if he really believed he had been cheated in any way.
Good if any heads roll as to ant fixing or vote rigging, that is right and should be done, it is not however the exclusive fault of any candidate in an election, if it is their part which engage in any of it.

[the truth]

I choose to ignore nothing, I simply do not agree.

No point in going round in circles.
What this USA election has shown me is that something is wrong with the whole system but candidates can only operate in the system their Party puts in place.

In all elections, even ours mud slinging and even borderline slander goes on.
Sanders then campaigned fro Clinton and did not need to if he really was as angry about anything as you make out.
Many major republicans, not liking Trump, stopped canvassing for him to win.
I am sure Bernie could and would have expressed his disapproval the same way if he really believed he had been cheated in any way.
Good if any heads roll as to ant fixing or vote rigging, that is right and should be done, it is not however the exclusive fault of any candidate in an election, if it is their part which engage in any of it.
Youre ignoring the vast evidence of corruption against her and the democratic party, I find that chilling

The Chairwoman of The Democratic Party - Debbie Wasserman Schultz - resigned from her position after she was proved to have sent an email during the run up to the Primary Election in which she pledged that Bernie; "would NOT be president."

Another scandal concerned a corroborated report, that instead of apportioning funds raised equally to all the Democratic Candidates as it should have, the DNC’s fundraising committee was instead, laundering money to the Clinton campaign.

Against the rules, DNC officials conspired BEFORE the Primaries even started, to "disproportionately endorse Clinton" against Sanders, and throughout the Primaries, those same officials plotted to "help Clinton build and maintain a lead over Sanders".

[Kizzy]

If Sanders is so politically and ideologically aligned with Corbyn isn't it strange how the misinformation and bias within his own party as well as the media is so easily identifiable for him?....

[empire]

it was well-known that under bill, many staff at the white house said that hillary would attack bill, and she would ridicule her staff who would not take her crap, and many in the white house said that bill was a nice guy who always said thank you, but hillary would never say the word thank you, one of bill's lovers said that he had a nickname for her, /THE WARDEN/ and many who have met her have said the same words about her, the reason why she did not go out to her supporters on the election night was because she was so drunk that she tried to physically attack john podesta and robby mook, and she had to be sedated by her doctor, this woman was not level head to run a country, I say thank god she lost,

[Alf]

it was well-known that under bill, many staff at the white house said that hillary would attack bill, and she would ridicule her staff who would not take her crap, and many in the white house said that bill was a nice guy who always said thank you, but hillary would never say the word thank you, one of bill's lovers said that he had a nickname for her, /THE WARDEN/ and many who have met her have said the same words about her, the reason why she did not go out to her supporters on the election night was because she was so drunk that she tried to physically attack john podesta and robby mook, and she had to be sedated by her doctor, this woman was not level head to run a country, I say thank god she lost,I've heard reports that on election night, when she found out she lost, she physically attacked some of her team, and I can believe it to be true.

[empire]

from the sounds of her health, she does not have that long to live, she could not go up or down the stairs, without holding on too both banisters, it was also caught on film and from inside her party that she would fall many times, and she had to be held on by both of her bodyguards, she also has seizures, and it is said that her party brings in a bodydouble when her health hits at a very bad level, she is pumped up with so many strong drugs, that she nearly passes out, and her inside team said in the e-mails that she has early signs of vascular dementia,

[Tom4784]

I heard she feasts on the souls of children to extend her life for a few extra minutes.

[Brillopad]

I heard she feasts on the souls of children to extend her life for a few extra minutes.

I could almost believe that - if she could, she would.

[Niamh.]

I heard she feasts on the souls of children to extend her life for a few extra minutes.

:laugh:

[Nicky91]

Hillary is a good person, why does everyone think she's crooked, leave her alone :sad:

[the truth]

Hillary is a good person, why does everyone think she's crooked, leave her alone :sad:

tell that to the 1 million dead innocent iraqis and the libyans, the syrians etc etc

[Brillopad]

Hillary is a good person, why does everyone think she's crooked, leave her alone :sad:

Sorry, but maybe you need to do some homework on Mrs Clinton!

[Nicky91]

Sorry, but maybe you need to do some homework on Mrs Clinton!

well okay she has done some bad things, but now she isn't elected president, so please give her a break :)


and deleting e-mails containing government information is something criminal of course, so maybe she did already have her punishment people not voting for her to become president :)


i am still surprised and delighted that Donald Trump got elected president :)

[Northern Monkey]

I heard she feasts on the souls of children to extend her life for a few extra minutes.

:joker:

[the truth]

so happy the career criminal and warmonger killary hasnt taken over the free world....lets give this great businessman a chance

[Ammi]

..well the USA has no choice but to give it a chance because it is as it is and as the voting has decided...so far as the forum is concerned though..?..(because I'm not sure what the giving a chance refers to..)..it's not really the non-trump people so far as I can see that aren't giving it a chance with what feels like endless 'goading' threads which are only ever going to incite opposing opinions in posting with those who aren't feeling the same Trump adoration...so it seems very counterproductive in these endless threads from Trump supporters and then saying give it a chance/move on etc when the inevitable opposing opinions are given...

[user104658]

I just don't understand why this is even still a "thing". I mean, something like Brexit, sure, a huge, probably permanent political change (that hasn't even fully gone through yet) still has scope for debate...

But Hillary lost. No matter what way you cut it, it's over, she's irrelevant, she isn't president and she won't ever BE president, really all she is now is a relic of a political system that seems to be "dying off"... none of this is really relevant. It's already history, not current politics.

Sometimes I wonder if the vehemently anti-Hillary people would have been much happier if she'd won, as really what seems to be desired is something to "unmask" / mock / complain about. "LOOK AT WHAT SHE DID! LOOK AT WHAT SHE HAS DONE NOW!!!". Like... people are still trying to do it, for absolutely no reason :joker:. I can only imagine they just... enjoy it?

[Ammi]

I just don't understand why this is even still a "thing". I mean, something like Brexit, sure, a huge, probably permanent political change (that hasn't even fully gone through yet) still has scope for debate...

But Hillary lost. No matter what way you cut it, it's over, she's irrelevant, she isn't president and she won't ever BE president, really all she is now is a relic of a political system that seems to be "dying off"... none of this is really relevant. It's already history, not current politics.

Sometimes I wonder if the vehemently anti-Hillary people would have been much happier if she'd won, as really what seems to be desired is something to "unmask" / mock / complain about. "LOOK AT WHAT SHE DID! LOOK AT WHAT SHE HAS DONE NOW!!!". Like... people are still trying to do it, for absolutely no reason :joker:. I can only imagine they just... enjoy it?


..I'm not even sure if she's ever had any supporters here or if Trump has anyone who actually hates him is the things as well...it's just not seeing much good in either of them/anything to be respected or admired etc...I mean it's just all so counterproductive in terms of the forum...

[kirklancaster]

I just don't understand why this is even still a "thing". I mean, something like Brexit, sure, a huge, probably permanent political change (that hasn't even fully gone through yet) still has scope for debate...

But Hillary lost. No matter what way you cut it, it's over, she's irrelevant, she isn't president and she won't ever BE president, really all she is now is a relic of a political system that seems to be "dying off"... none of this is really relevant. It's already history, not current politics.

Sometimes I wonder if the vehemently anti-Hillary people would have been much happier if she'd won, as really what seems to be desired is something to "unmask" / mock / complain about. "LOOK AT WHAT SHE DID! LOOK AT WHAT SHE HAS DONE NOW!!!". Like... people are still trying to do it, for absolutely no reason :joker:. I can only imagine they just... enjoy it?

For my part, I respond to rebut a post which counters the opinion which I hold, or to support a post which coincides with my opinion, but which is being rebutted by those of a differing opinion.

I also believe, that while ever Donald Trump, The US Presidential Election, the Anti-Trump riots, and the very real linked corruption and Electoral 'irregularities' ARE current and under debate, then Hilary Clinton is still highly RELEVANT, and as such, it is inevitable that she will form the topic of a lot of members posts.

[Niamh.]

For my part, I respond to rebut a post which counters the opinion which I hold, or to support a post which coincides with my opinion, but which is being rebutted by those of a differing opinion.

I also believe, that while ever Donald Trump, The US Presidential Election, the Anti-Trump riots, and the very real linked corruption and Electoral 'irregularities' ARE current and under debate, then Hilary Clinton is still highly RELEVANT, and as such, it is inevitable that she will form the topic of a lot of members posts.

I think though that people don't dislike Trump because they like Hillary, they don't like Trump because of himself and his actions/things he's said.

[Ammi]

I think though that people don't dislike Trump because they like Hillary, they don't like Trump because of himself and his actions/things he's said.

..yeah this exactly Niamh and it just goes on and on in my opinion... which is fine if that's what's wanted but then there is no point to keep saying things like sour grapes/move on/give him a chance etc...

[the truth]

I think though that people don't dislike Trump because they like Hillary, they don't like Trump because of himself and his actions/things he's said.

like protecting the public, reducing terrorism, rewarding veterans, reducing debts, improving wealth, rebuilding roads and the industries, producing millions of jobs, keeping them in america, withdrawing from the middle east in time....? what a nasty man?

[Niamh.]

like protecting the public, reducing terrorism, rewarding veterans, reducing debts, improving wealth, rebuilding roads and the industries, producing millions of jobs, keeping them in america, withdrawing from the middle east in time....? what a nasty man?

yes yes, that's it

[the truth]

yes yes, that's it

glad to see youre now a trumpette :wavey:

[Niamh.]

glad to see youre now a trumpette :wavey:

mmm

[kirklancaster]

Oh, I agree with you here Niamh - I do honestly believe that most people who dislike or hate Trump do so because of what they perceive him to be and not because he was Clinton's opponent in the Presidential Elections, but I was meaning that BECAUSE Trump and the other Election linked issues are still HOT news, then it is inevitable that Clinton's name is going to be brought up and the linked issues surrounding her be discussed.

[user104658]

I also believe, that while ever Donald Trump, The US Presidential Election, the Anti-Trump riots, and the very real linked corruption and Electoral 'irregularities' ARE current and under debate, then Hilary Clinton is still highly RELEVANT, and as such, it is inevitable that she will form the topic of a lot of members posts.


I'm just not convinced it's a debate that needs to be had, especially in the "mocking" way it sometimes is here (not by you, kirk) and the talk of "sour grapes" etc. because as others have said... there really aren't many, if any, Hillary supporters on here at all :shrug:.

The fact that Hillary Clinton would have made a bad president has absolutely no bearing on anti-Trump sentiment on here or anywhere else... it doesn't mean that Trump isn't also bad. He's untested of course so no one can say for sure, but logically speaking, a sneering / truth-bending semi-celebrity and representative of "American Big Business" is unlikely to make a good president. That doesn't mean that Clinton would have been a good president.

There just seems to be thread after thread gleefully attempting to call out "Loony Left" (Clinton is not Left) "Hillary Supporters" (who are simply not here). People seem to be trying to CREATE Hillary fans in their mind to mock, for little purpose other than to "enjoy a victory" that presumably otherwise feels hollow.

[Brillopad]

I'm just not convinced it's a debate that needs to be had, especially in the "mocking" way it sometimes is here (not by you, kirk) and the talk of "sour grapes" etc. because as others have said... there really aren't many, if any, Hillary supporters on here at all :shrug:.

The fact that Hillary Clinton would have made a bad president has absolutely no bearing on anti-Trump sentiment on here or anywhere else... it doesn't mean that Trump isn't also bad. He's untested of course so no one can say for sure, but logically speaking, a sneering / truth-bending semi-celebrity and representative of "American Big Business" is unlikely to make a good president. That doesn't mean that Clinton would have been a good president.

There just seems to be thread after thread gleefully attempting to call out "Loony Left" (Clinton is not Left) "Hillary Supporters" (who are simply not here). People seem to be trying to CREATE Hillary fans in their mind to mock, for little purpose other than to "enjoy a victory" that presumably otherwise feels hollow.

I think it is more a response to the constant verbal attacks on anyone who voted for Trump or argued in favour of his win over hers. Hilary was the only alternative to Trump so for people to attack others for 'supporting' Trump makes no sense.

People had their reasons for preferring Trump to Clinton, as is their right, but still the 'left leaning' supporters on here keep having digs and making the usual allegations of ' bigots' etc - why lay all the blame at the door of those that back him over her. Sounds rather one-sided.

[kirklancaster]

I'm just not convinced it's a debate that needs to be had, especially in the "mocking" way it sometimes is here (not by you, kirk) and the talk of "sour grapes" etc. because as others have said... there really aren't many, if any, Hillary supporters on here at all :shrug:.

The fact that Hillary Clinton would have made a bad president has absolutely no bearing on anti-Trump sentiment on here or anywhere else... it doesn't mean that Trump isn't also bad. He's untested of course so no one can say for sure, but logically speaking, a sneering / truth-bending semi-celebrity and representative of "American Big Business" is unlikely to make a good president. That doesn't mean that Clinton would have been a good president.

There just seems to be thread after thread gleefully attempting to call out "Loony Left" (Clinton is not Left) "Hillary Supporters" (who are simply not here). People seem to be trying to CREATE Hillary fans in their mind to mock, for little purpose other than to "enjoy a victory" that presumably otherwise feels hollow.

Fair comment T.S, and as always, I respect your opinion.

Truthfully? - I WISH Trump, Clinton AND the entire US Presidential Election had NEVER been discussed on here at all, because in the time I have been a member of Tibb, I have NEVER witnessed a more divisive subject which has, directly and indirectly, caused nothing but real friction and trouble, and created palpable rifts between once genuinely friendly members.

It is my genuine hope, that once time passes and this subject is - as you said - 'History', then those rifts may heal.

But I would NOT bet on it T.S.

[Ammi]

I think it is more a response to the constant verbal attacks on anyone who voted for Trump or argued in favour of his win over hers. Hilary was the only alternative to Trump so for people to attack others for 'supporting' Trump makes no sense.

People had their reasons for preferring Trump to Clinton, as is their right, but still the 'left leaning' supporters on here keep having digs and making the usual allegations of ' bigots' etc - why lay all the blame at the door of those that back him over her. Sounds rather one-sided.

..no one was attacked for supporting Trump and there definitely wasn't 'one side' either with those who preferred Hilary as being the lesser of two evils being accused of supporting some really awful things that was felt she was a part of..but this all really is going back, which is fairly much not going anywhere positive in the election being over now and a more positive approach with the outcome...

[Tom4784]

I think it is more a response to the constant verbal attacks on anyone who voted for Trump or argued in favour of his win over hers. Hilary was the only alternative to Trump so for people to attack others for 'supporting' Trump makes no sense.

People had their reasons for preferring Trump to Clinton, as is their right, but still the 'left leaning' supporters on here keep having digs and making the usual allegations of ' bigots' etc - why lay all the blame at the door of those that back him over her. Sounds rather one-sided.

Unless you consider opinions that aren't yours an attack then there wasn't many incidents of people being attacked on this forum for being Trump fans.

If anything it's the opposite with all these 'Loony Left' 'Remoaners' and 'Sour Grapes' comments aimed at anyone who isn't Right Wing.

[user104658]

I think it is more a response to the constant verbal attacks on anyone who voted for Trump or argued in favour of his win over hers. Hilary was the only alternative to Trump so for people to attack others for 'supporting' Trump makes no sense.

People had their reasons for preferring Trump to Clinton, as is their right, but still the 'left leaning' supporters on here keep having digs and making the usual allegations of ' bigots' etc - why lay all the blame at the door of those that back him over her. Sounds rather one-sided.

I have literally not seen one person allude to racism / bigotry / misogyny etc. in any of these threads based purely on someone having supported / spoken positively of Trump in general. I have seen those responses in threads where people have given things as reasons for their support, and the comments are directed squarely at those sorts of comments. Not the "general Trump support".

To put it more bluntly, and in a way that will likely be "frowned upon"... there are plenty of members here who have expressed Trump support whose demeanor and motivation I don't question at all. Who are respectful and, even when it gets heated, at least earnest. There are others who I think are trying to "get a reaction" simply because it will please them, and are frustrated because there are no genuine Hillary Clinton supporters here for them to bait. It's boring. The only thing MORE boring is having to "play by the rules" and not call these people out :wavey:.

[Brillopad]

Unless you consider opinions that aren't yours an attack then there wasn't many incidents of people being attacked on this forum for being Trump fans.

If anything it's the opposite with all these 'Loony Left' 'Remoaners' and 'Sour Grapes' comments aimed at anyone who isn't Right Wing.

Calling people 'bigots' for supporting Trump over Clinton or for generally having opinions different to yours it an attack. Instigating arguments with such comments is clearly going to experdite a response. Don't play the innocent.

[Brillopad]

I have literally not seen one person allude to racism / bigotry / misogyny etc. in any of these threads based purely on someone having supported / spoken positively of Trump in general. I have seen those responses in threads where people have given things as reasons for their support, and the comments are directed squarely at those sorts of comments. Not the "general Trump support".

To put it more bluntly, and in a way that will likely be "frowned upon"... there are plenty of members here who have expressed Trump support whose demeanor and motivation I don't question at all. Who are respectful and, even when it gets heated, at least earnest. There are others who I think are trying to "get a reaction" simply because it will please them, and are frustrated because there are no genuine Hillary Clinton supporters here for them to bait. It's boring. The only thing MORE boring is having to "play by the rules" and not call these people out :wavey:.

Personally I don't believe I have seen anyone on here offer any derogatory or insulting reasons for supporting Trump - nothing deserving of the 'bigot' allegations. Simply expressing concerns regarding the current level of immigration is not justification for such remarks.

But I have seen such comments banded about for nothing more. Hardly reasonable and hardly likely to provoke a reasonable response, by any reasonable person's standards.

[BB4fan]

Liberals are intolerant of anyone else's views. They can barely put up a decent argument without resorting to childish name calling when they don't like what the see.

It's not a shock that these same liberals took to the streets last week in America to smash people's properties and act like violent animals just because Trump is the President elect. American liberals are the worst offenders for bullying and using violence against anyone who doesn't share their views points.

They act like children when they don't get their way. Anyone who has a different view than them is called a racist, homophobic, misogynist etc.

[user104658]

People in general are intolerant of anyone else's views. They can barely put up a decent argument without resorting to childish name calling when they don't like what the see.

Fixed your post.

[Niamh.]

Liberals are intolerant of anyone else's views. They can barely put up a decent argument without resorting to childish name calling when they don't like what the see.

It's not a shock that these same liberals took to the streets last week in America to smash people's properties and act like violent animals just because Trump is the President elect. American liberals are the worst offenders for bullying and using violence against anyone who doesn't share their views points.

They act like children when they don't get their way. Anyone who has a different view than them is called a racist, homophobic, misogynist etc.

that's a very sweeping generalisation to make

[Kizzy]

Liberals are intolerant of anyone else's views. They can barely put up a decent argument without resorting to childish name calling when they don't like what the see.

It's not a shock that these same liberals took to the streets last week in America to smash people's properties and act like violent animals just because Trump is the President elect. American liberals are the worst offenders for bullying and using violence against anyone who doesn't share their views points.

They act like children when they don't get their way. Anyone who has a different view than them is called a racist, homophobic, misogynist etc.

Oh yeah?! You social justice warrior..... Might have known the PC brigade of the new moral army would rock up on their high horses!!

Sound familiar?...

[Tom4784]

Calling people 'bigots' for supporting Trump over Clinton or for generally having opinions different to yours it an attack. Instigating arguments with such comments is clearly going to experdite a response. Don't play the innocent.

When did I say that all Trump supporters are bigots? Go on, find it.

[Tom4784]

Oh yeah?! You social justice warrior..... Might have known the PC brigade of the new moral army would rock up on their high horses!!

Sound familiar?...

Don't forget those hateful remoaners and their sour grapes!

[Brillopad]

When did I say that all Trump supporters are bigots? Go on, find it.

Where did I say that, I confronted you about calling some Trump supporters on here 'bigots' for expressing opinions not in keeping with you own. I have lost count of the amount of times I have seen you use that word on here.

[Tom4784]

Where did I say that, I confronted you about calling some Trump supporters on here 'bigots' for expressing opinions not in keeping with you own. I have lost count of the amount of times I have seen you use that word on here.

And where, pray tell, did I call anyone on hear a bigot just for supporting Trump? Go on, I'll wait.

Are you saying that there are no bigots who support Trump? Do you not believe the KKK to be bigots? The Tea Party? various extreme right wing groups that pledged their support to him?

There are bigots that support Trump, Fact. He came to political prominence because of his stance on Immigrants and muslims, Fact. To act like racists and bigots don't form a sizable part of his target audience is denying reality.

He didn't become president because of his flawed economic policies....

[Brillopad]

And where, pray tell, did I call anyone on hear a bigot just for supporting Trump? Go on, I'll wait.

Are you saying that there are no bigots who support Trump? Do you not believe the KKK to be bigots? The Tea Party? various extreme right wing groups that pledged their support to him?

There are bigots that support Trump, Fact. He came to political prominence because of his stance on Immigrants and muslims, Fact. To act like racists and bigots don't form a sizable part of his target audience is denying reality.

He didn't become president because of his flawed economic policies....

A large number of people voted for Trump because of concerns over immigration, he won because of that, fact. Given the numbers involved, and Brexit, it is clearly a massive concern for a Hugh number of ordinary people, not just far right extremists.

Stop trying to suggest that only 'racists' object to such large-scale immigration. These concerns won't just go away because some people attempt to belittle such concerns and name-calling.

[Tom4784]

A large number of people voted for Trump because of concerns over immigration, he won because of that, fact. Given the numbers involved, and Brexit, it is clearly a massive concern for a Hugh number of ordinary people, not just far right extremists.

Stop trying to suggest that only 'racists' object to such large-scale immigration. These concerns won't just go away because some people attempt to belittle such concerns and name-calling.

That line might work if his immigration comments didn't suggest building a wall and referring to Mexicans as a whole as rapists. Being concerned about Immigration does not make you a bigot but you cannot deny that his comments and the accounts from his rallies (some admittedly were stirred up by Hillary supporters but others weren't) tell a story that a sizable part (read, not all) of his fanbase most likely hold bigoted views.

Most voters are uninformed, they'll make their decisions based on the soundbites and the headlines. That goes for most people on both sides of any vote. Brexit had so much support because the Brexit campaign lied about £350 million being freed up by leaving EU and that leaving would curb immigration which it wouldn't. The actual pros and cons of any election rarely come into it which is likely why Trump won despite the fact that his policies are flawed. People bought into the soundbites rather than the reality.

[Northern Monkey]

I'm bored of the election and Hillary and Trump now.Hence why my side Splittingly funny sig has gone.:laugh:

[empire]

hillary was a very good politican in the 80s and 90s, but in the later years she gave into the temptation of money and power, but many hillary supporters won't admit it, that she is a shadow of what she was 20 years ago, her doctors in 2012 told her not to run for president because if she was in the white house, she would not see the second year of term, and many in the party said that they did not want her to run for president this time, and they where thrown over the side, hillary's biggest weakness is that she does not listen to people.

[Brillopad]

That line might work if his immigration comments didn't suggest building a wall and referring to Mexicans as a whole as rapists. Being concerned about Immigration does not make you a bigot but you cannot deny that his comments and the accounts from his rallies (some admittedly were stirred up by Hillary supporters but others weren't) tell a story that a sizable part (read, not all) of his fanbase most likely hold bigoted views.

Most voters are uninformed, they'll make their decisions based on the soundbites and the headlines. That goes for most people on both sides of any vote. Brexit had so much support because the Brexit campaign lied about £350 million being freed up by leaving EU and that leaving would curb immigration which it wouldn't. The actual pros and cons of any election rarely come into it which is likely why Trump won despite the fact that his policies are flawed. People bought into the soundbites rather than the reality.


That is beyond patronising. I completely disagree that most voters are uninformed and gullible. People are generally well educated and interested in the politics of their own country because, despite your implications, they have enough sense to know how such policies can influence their lives.

Both sides lied, not least Cameron and Osborne with project fear. I have no doubt that because of Brexit we will retain a tighter control of our borders in the future, to ignore the voters would be political suicide for some and would have enormous negative consequences for the democratic voting system in this country.

You clearly seem to think you know better than most people in this country, but somehow I seriously doubt that.

[Tom4784]

That is beyond patronising. I completely disagree that most voters are uninformed and gullible. People are generally well educated and interested in the politics of their own country because, despite your implications, they have enough sense to know how such policies can influence their lives.

Both sides lied, not least Cameron and Osborne with project fear. I have no doubt that because of Brexit we will retain a tighter control of our borders in the future, to ignore the voters would be political suicide for some and would have enormous negative consequences for the democratic voting system in this country.

You clearly seem to think you know better than most people in this country, but somehow I seriously doubt that.

That is beyond naive.

I bet if you were to ask most of the people who voted Trump, a large part of them wouldn't be able to tell you a single actual Trump policy, they'd tell you the soundbite but that's about it.

The public as a whole are uninformed, that's just the truth of the matter. It doesn't matter which side, people will just vote for whatever they like best based on soundbites and headlines.

I'm a realist, if you think the majority of people sit down and read up on the latest issues when it comes to making a political choice then you're mistaken. Most just don't know what they are actually voting for regardless of the side.

[Cherie]

That is beyond naive.

I bet if you were to ask most of the people who voted Trump, a large part of them wouldn't be able to tell you a single actual Trump policy, they'd tell you the soundbite but that's about it.

The public as a whole are uninformed, that's just the truth of the matter. It doesn't matter which side, people will just vote for whatever they like best based on soundbites and headlines.

I'm a realist, if you think the majority of people sit down and read up on the latest issues when it comes to making a political choice then you're mistaken. Most just don't know what they are actually voting for regardless of the side.


:umm2:

[user104658]

:umm2:

Oh come on, that is blatantly true :joker:. Ironically "un-PC" to say so but it is what it is. The majority of people form their opinions based on TV journalism and tabloid press (i.e. sensationalism, soundbites, and other assorted bull****).

[Cherie]

Oh come on, that is blatantly true :joker:. Ironically "un-PC" to say so but it is what it is. The majority of people form their opinions based on TV journalism and tabloid press (i.e. sensationalism, soundbites, and other assorted bull****).

That's fine, but let's get real here if a lowly "forum member " said this they would be at the very least pulled on it, or infracted or banned :hee:

[Cherie]

that's a very sweeping generalisation to make

Evidence of pulling :hee:

[James]

From what I can see most people get their opinions on subjects like the EU over a number of years. It's been talked about for ages. Probably nightly TV news is the main source. I doubt political campaigns make much difference actually.

I was looking back, and here is a poll from before the EU referendum campaign that had Leave in the lead - http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8580972&postcount=882 before any buses with £350 million slogans appeared.

I'm talking about UK politics here - don't know enough about US politics to say much about the reasons for that. Although for what I can see the campaign there was mostly about personality and character of the candidates, with actual policies hardly talked about.

[user104658]

That's fine, but let's get real here if a lowly "forum member " said this they would be at the very least pulled on it, or infracted or banned :hee:
No.

[Cherie]

]From what I can see most people get their opinions on subjects like the EU over a number of years. It's been talked about for ages. Probably nightly TV news is the main source. I doubt political campaigns make much difference actually.
[/B]
I was looking back, and here is a poll from before the EU referendum campaign that had Leave in the lead - http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8580972&postcount=882 before any buses with £350 million slogans appeared.

I'm talking about UK politics here - don't know enough about US politics to say much about the reasons for that. Although for what I can see the campaign there was mostly about personality and character of the candidates, with actual policies hardly talked about.

:clap2:

[James]

:umm3:

[Cherie]

:umm4:

[Tom4784]

From what I can see most people get their opinions on subjects like the EU over a number of years. It's been talked about for ages. Probably nightly TV news is the main source. I doubt political campaigns make much difference actually.

I was looking back, and here is a poll from before the EU referendum campaign that had Leave in the lead - http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8580972&postcount=882 before any buses with £350 million slogans appeared.

I'm talking about UK politics here - don't know enough about US politics to say much about the reasons for that. Although for what I can see the campaign there was mostly about personality and character of the candidates, with actual policies hardly talked about.

It went back and forth for ages iirc and plus it doesn't really disprove what I'm saying about a lot of people not really being informed.

Brexit mostly became a vote on immigration by the end although leaving the EU would have little effect on our immigration policies. Most people likely voted Leave or Remain on that issue alone although neither option would have an affect on it. That's rather uninformed.

[empire]

democrat supporters have got to stop acting like sore losers, you had 8 years to sort out the problems and all you did was throw obama care at the people, and then you opened up the borders, and with it an increase in murders, sexual assaults, and sex trafficking, and the drug cartels driving in and out of the country, and building up their empires in the cities of LA,chicago, and miami, and selling their stash to kids on the streets, and today the democrats only get states in the election where the rich and famous live, and what would these people know about having a harsh life, look at the election map and the states that are blue, and look at the states that are red, what a shock, and why do they think blaming the white voters when it was them who helped obama get into the white house, and does katy perry,beyonce,lady gaga think that hillary is a fan of there music,

[Kizzy]

That is beyond patronising. I completely disagree that most voters are uninformed and gullible. People are generally well educated and interested in the politics of their own country because, despite your implications, they have enough sense to know how such policies can influence their lives.

Both sides lied, not least Cameron and Osborne with project fear. I have no doubt that because of Brexit we will retain a tighter control of our borders in the future, to ignore the voters would be political suicide for some and would have enormous negative consequences for the democratic voting system in this country.

You clearly seem to think you know better than most people in this country, but somehow I seriously doubt that.


:joker::joker::joker:....No. joe public does not have a clue what is about to theoretically knee him in the nads concerning brexit.

[Kizzy]

That's fine, but let's get real here if a lowly "forum member " said this they would be at the very least pulled on it, or infracted or banned :hee:

I've said similar 100s of times and not been banned for it, I think our media is biased. There's university studies done on how biased it is! And I've not been banned for saying it... Mainly because I'm ace mind you :hee:

[Ammi]

From what I can see most people get their opinions on subjects like the EU over a number of years. It's been talked about for ages. Probably nightly TV news is the main source. I doubt political campaigns make much difference actually.

I was looking back, and here is a poll from before the EU referendum campaign that had Leave in the lead - http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8580972&postcount=882 before any buses with £350 million slogans appeared.

I'm talking about UK politics here - don't know enough about US politics to say much about the reasons for that. Although for what I can see the campaign there was mostly about personality and character of the candidates, with actual policies hardly talked about.



..Jack_ posted this article in another thread yesterday and it's an excellent read...

https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2016/nov/16/how-trump-took-middletown-muncie-election

..I know it's only one person's take on one American 'middletown' so not necessarily a complete representative or even accurate, we don't know but it does make so much sense also and interestingly suggests that 'character' doesn't play that big a part, with some who voted for Trump possibly not even liking anything about his character, feeling he has nothing to admire about him at all or to be able to relate to etc...but more that he just doesn't represent what is felt has taken away virtually everything that 'middletowns' have been built on, stripped away generations of familiars and left a feeling of such 'abandonment'...immigration is a factor as well and all of the other things that have been mentioned over time, it's a mixture of all of it to the point of a disillusioned society and Hilary, being establishment represented that disillusionment...her 'corruption' not being such a factor and Trump's prejudices not so much either.../it's just the biggest ENOUGH..!!!!!!!!!!!...ever, in saying...where do we fit in, what happened to our world and what did you all governments do for our benefit in progression.../anyways, it's an excellent read if you have time, James...

[Ammi]

..anyways, the reason I dislike these type of vids so much is because they're so ironical and hypocritical and purposefully agitate and incite the very thing that they appear to be condemning...it's perfectly obvious that liberal people are not who are been shown committing violent acts../that's a whole contradiction because if they're communication is violence in their intolerance then they're not liberal so he's just adding layers on layers of the same thing he objects to and they serve no purpose other than to agitate for his own agenda or income or whatever...the first incident is a high school or college student...and it was already being dealt with in disciplinary action there and no need to put it out over the internet in a vid that will only attract more 'hate' and gather moss as these things do...and he's far to media savvy to not know exactly what he's doing, just a grim person really...

[Kizzy]

Micheal Moore hit the nail on the head, he knew he'd will because of the disenfranchised vote. The same happened here with brexit, trump winning was even coined 'the brexit effect' I think. People are just so frustrated Jimmy saville could have risen from the dead, promised to deliver us from 'the big 6' of anything and everthing, and he's have won!

[Ammi]

Micheal Moore hit the nail on the head, he knew he'd will because of the disenfranchised vote. The same happened here with brexit, trump winning was even coined 'the brexit effect' I think. People are just so frustrated Jimmy saville could have risen from the dead, promised to deliver us from 'the big 6' of anything and everthing, and he's have won!

...the article that Jack posted has a slightly different take in that it paints the pic of that town so much as well and draws on so many familiars that we can all relate to in some way, it just feels a little more personal I guess.../anyways I have to rush but if you have time at all Kizzy, it's an excellent read which I think you'll appreciate...

[Niamh.]

Evidence of pulling :hee:

I'm a married woman excuse your cheek :nono:

[Cherie]

I'm a married woman excuse your cheek :nono:

:laugh:

[kirklancaster]

:joker::joker::joker:....No. joe public does not have a clue what is about to theoretically knee him in the nads concerning brexit.

I am a member of 'Joe Public'and so are DOZENS of my friends and associates as are dozens more of people who I could best term 'acquaintances', and we ALL voted for Brexit.

Among these people are four Company Directors, two Doctors, two Solicitors, several Nurses, three Policemen, several Teachers, and several SME business owners, as well as dozens of 'Blue Collar Workers, several unemployed and quite a few 'Ducker And Divers'.

The one other thing which we all have in common - apart from our Brexit vote - is that ALL of us understand the real issues concerning the EU and our membership of it.

So while you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, you will forgive me if I elect not to pay heed to it, and this is based upon the fact - that in my opinion, which I am as EQUALLY entitled to - it is ALL YOUR posts which are so ill informed and erroneous as to the true facts concerning current affairs, including politics and the EU, that they attest to YOU having the woeful LACK of any REAL understanding of the issues often debated on here, NOT 'Joe Public'.

[Livia]

I am a member of 'Joe Public'and so are DOZENS of my friends and associates as are dozens more of people who I could best term 'acquaintances', and we ALL voted for Brexit.

Among these people are four Company Directors, two Doctors, two Solicitors, several Nurses, three Policemen, several Teachers, and several SME business owners, as well as dozens of 'Blue Collar Workers, several unemployed and quite a few 'Ducker And Divers'.

The one other thing which we all have in common - apart from our Brexit vote - is that ALL of us understand the real issues concerning the EU and our membership of it.

So while you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, you will forgive me if I elect not to pay heed to it, and this is based upon the fact - that in my opinion, which I am as EQUALLY entitled to - it is ALL YOUR posts which are so ill informed and erroneous as to the true facts concerning current affairs, including politics and the EU, that they attest to YOU having the woeful LACK of any REAL understanding of the issues often debated on here, NOT 'Joe Public'.

The remainers are all so aware, their crystal balls are not cloudy at all. I'm shocked they're not all millionaires with their amazing foresight.

Frexit next... and the dominoes begin to fall.

[user104658]

Frexit next... and the dominoes begin to fall.

Said Livia, after consulting her own crystal ball.

[joeysteele]

I am a member of 'Joe Public'and so are DOZENS of my friends and associates as are dozens more of people who I could best term 'acquaintances', and we ALL voted for Brexit.

Among these people are four Company Directors, two Doctors, two Solicitors, several Nurses, three Policemen, several Teachers, and several SME business owners, as well as dozens of 'Blue Collar Workers, several unemployed and quite a few 'Ducker And Divers'.

The one other thing which we all have in common - apart from our Brexit vote - is that ALL of us understand the real issues concerning the EU and our membership of it.

So while you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, you will forgive me if I elect not to pay heed to it, and this is based upon the fact - that in my opinion, which I am as EQUALLY entitled to - it is ALL YOUR posts which are so ill informed and erroneous as to the true facts concerning current affairs, including politics and the EU, that they attest to YOU having the woeful LACK of any REAL understanding of the issues often debated on here, NOT 'Joe Public'.

While I can agree with most of what you say there, it is I think unfair the criticism you make of the person you are getting at again.
Her views areas relevant as anyone elses and just because they are at odds with yours does not make them ill informed or erroneous.

This was the problem in the USA election which must have turned off many voters there by the personal slurs on the other by each candidate.
Neither gained any moral high ground there.

However how the EU gets in here is a little mystifying but Kirk, we are all Joe Public, not just you and those you know personally.
Also the other Joe Publics equally will have people they know well, are acquaintances or who they just know of such as you list as who voted leave, who also voted remain.

You haven't a monopoly on those groups, just as no one else has who is Joe public.
The people who voted remain, also know what they voting foe, Joe public and all the groups who did so that you list.

I do have to say, I asked many questions on here just as to what leaving meant and no leave voter told me anything concrete.
The only answer I got was they didn't want the EU making our laws.
Remain voters in my view voted for the status quo,knowing how all was and would not liekly change.
Leave voters probably voted for different reasons, some just for change, some for making our own laws, some immigration, some as to the single market and some for all of those things probably too.
Not all however.

So,I wanted to try to heed what others were saying opposite to me but I got nothing concrete at all,that could persuade me that the UK would do better out of the EU.
If I could have believed that, I would have thought about my vote more.
I listened to what you and most said,( when they were not personally insulting about it).
I was one who also realised remain was not going to win and in fact kept telling you that leave would get a result.

Anyway, all the people and groups you list that you know who voted to leave is fine but that is not the only story.
Those who voted remain probably the majority of them too have the same sets of people and professions they know, and know of as well who also voted as they did,remain too.
We are all Joe public however, not just you and those you know who think like you do.
Just as I am Joe public and those I know are not the only Joe public either.
.

[Tom4784]

I am a member of 'Joe Public'and so are DOZENS of my friends and associates as are dozens more of people who I could best term 'acquaintances', and we ALL voted for Brexit.

Among these people are four Company Directors, two Doctors, two Solicitors, several Nurses, three Policemen, several Teachers, and several SME business owners, as well as dozens of 'Blue Collar Workers, several unemployed and quite a few 'Ducker And Divers'.

The one other thing which we all have in common - apart from our Brexit vote - is that ALL of us understand the real issues concerning the EU and our membership of it.

So while you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, you will forgive me if I elect not to pay heed to it, and this is based upon the fact - that in my opinion, which I am as EQUALLY entitled to - it is ALL YOUR posts which are so ill informed and erroneous as to the true facts concerning current affairs, including politics and the EU, that they attest to YOU having the woeful LACK of any REAL understanding of the issues often debated on here, NOT 'Joe Public'.

And none of this has any effect on the majority of people on both sides who likely voted what they voted for based on soundbites and sensationalism rather than solid facts.

[the truth]

And none of this has any effect on the majority of people on both sides who likely voted what they voted for based on soundbites and sensationalism rather than solid facts.

more generalised insults for tens of millions , shameful

[arista]

[And none of this has any effect on the majority of people on both sides who likely voted what they voted for based on soundbites and sensationalism rather than solid facts. ]

I like that Dezzy
have you ever worked as a PA?

I would hire you

[Northern Monkey]

While I can agree with most of what you say there, it is I think unfair the criticism you make of the person you are getting at again.
Her views areas relevant as anyone elses and just because they are at odds with yours does not make them ill informed or erroneous.

This was the problem in the USA election which must have turned off many voters there by the personal slurs on the other by each candidate.
Neither gained any moral high ground there.

However how the EU gets in here is a little mystifying but Kirk, we are all Joe Public, not just you and those you know personally.
Also the other Joe Publics equally will have people they know well, are acquaintances or who they just know of such as you list as who voted leave, who also voted remain.

You haven't a monopoly on those groups, just as no one else has who is Joe public.
The people who voted remain, also know what they voting foe, Joe public and all the groups who did so that you list.

I do have to say, I asked many questions on here just as to what leaving meant and no leave voter told me anything concrete.
The only answer I got was they didn't want the EU making our laws.
Remain voters in my view voted for the status quo,knowing how all was and would not liekly change.
Leave voters probably voted for different reasons, some just for change, some for making our own laws, some immigration, some as to the single market and some for all of those things probably too.
Not all however.

So,I wanted to try to heed what others were saying opposite to me but I got nothing concrete at all,that could persuade me that the UK would do better out of the EU.
If I could have believed that, I would have thought about my vote more.
I listened to what you and most said,( when they were not personally insulting about it).
I was one who also realised remain was not going to win and in fact kept telling you that leave would get a result.

Anyway, all the people and groups you list that you know who voted to leave is fine but that is not the only story.
Those who voted remain probably the majority of them too have the same sets of people and professions they know, and know of as well who also voted as they did,remain too.
We are all Joe public however, not just you and those you know who think like you do.
Just as I am Joe public and those I know are not the only Joe public either.
.
Kirk did state 'in my opinion' before stating that the posters views on this subject on here are 'Ill informed' and 'erroneous'.A perfectly valid opinion to hold.
And he was not saying that he has some kind of 'monopoly' on knowing people of different professions.
He is replying to a very bold statement that is attempting to imply that people who voted to leave the EU are somehow 'ill informed' and are about to get some kind of big 'kick in the nads' that somehow Mystic Kizzy knows about and all of us uninformed dummies who voted to leave are totally ignorant to.
He is offering a rebuttal to this by giving examples of people from all different walks of life and all members of 'Joe public'(as all of us are) who made an informed decision when they cast their vote.

[joeysteele]

Kirk did state 'in my opinion' before stating that the posters views on this subject on here are 'Ill informed' and 'erroneous'.A perfectly valid opinion to hold.
And he was not saying that he has some kind of 'monopoly' on knowing people of different professions.
He is replying to a very bold statement that is attempting to imply that people who voted to leave the EU are somehow 'ill informed' and are about to get some kind of big 'kick in the nads' that somehow Mystic Kizzy knows about and all of us uninformed dummies who voted to leave are totally ignorant to.
He is offering a rebuttal to this by giving examples of people from all different walks of life and all members of 'Joe public'(as all of us are) who made an informed decision when they cast their vote.

I actually totally have to disagree that informed decisions were made in voting, on both sides too, although those voting remain knew things would probably go on as before.
However in even my own family, of whom very few voted to leave, talking to just 5 of them, 1 only voted to stop free movement of people from the EU, 2 voted for powers to be returned back to the UK parliament and the other 2 voted just for a change, no specifics as to why.

There were several factors of voting leave with not all voting for one set of things either.
That is my view and you can discount that but even from that small number in my family who did so, they did not vote for instance,believing we would leave the single market..
Also neither were they voting for that when they voted leave.

Needless to say I disagree too with your fist part of your post sadly, I see no reasons for personal attacks on others and stating they appear to know nothing.
Everyone has opinions, they do not need to be offensive,.

[Northern Monkey]

I actually totally have to disagree that informed decisions were made in voting, on both sides too, although those voting remain knew things would probably go on as before.
However in even my own family, of whom very few voted to leave, talking to just 5 of them, 1 only voted to stop free movement of people from the EU, 2 voted for powers to be returned back to the UK parliament and the other 2 voted just for a change, no specifics as to why.

There were several factors of voting leave with not all voting for one set of things either.
That is my view and you can discount that but even from that small number in my family who did so, they did not vote for instance,believing we would leave the single market..
Also neither were they voting for that when they voted leave.

Needless to say I disagree too with your fist part of your post sadly, I see no reasons for personal attacks on others and stating they appear to know nothing.
Everyone has opinions, they do not need to be offensive,.But what makes those examples that you give of leave voters you know any more valid than those that Kirk knows?All are equally valid.There are many who researched what they were voting for aswell as many who did'nt on both sides.I don't discount your view as you shouldn't discount Kirks on those examples.There are implications on here that most leavers are unimformed or racists or xenophobes etc(i'm not saying that you've suggested that).These are offensive to leavers.
I saw no personal attacks in his post towards any person.Just an opinion on posts on here.

[the truth]

I actually totally have to disagree that informed decisions were made in voting, on both sides too, although those voting remain knew things would probably go on as before.
However in even my own family, of whom very few voted to leave, talking to just 5 of them, 1 only voted to stop free movement of people from the EU, 2 voted for powers to be returned back to the UK parliament and the other 2 voted just for a change, no specifics as to why.

There were several factors of voting leave with not all voting for one set of things either.
That is my view and you can discount that but even from that small number in my family who did so, they did not vote for instance,believing we would leave the single market..
Also neither were they voting for that when they voted leave.

Needless to say I disagree too with your fist part of your post sadly, I see no reasons for personal attacks on others and stating they appear to know nothing.
Everyone has opinions, they do not need to be offensive,.

I agree , remainers were spectacularly uninformed, most didnt even know the commissioners couldnt be voted in or out? Most didnt even know about the mass of bankrupt nations and record unemployment across europe

[kirklancaster]

[QUOTE=joeysteele;9063785]While I can agree with most of what you say there, it is I think unfair the criticism you make of the person you are getting at again.

NOTE: Though the distinctions are often extremely difficult to keep separate, I am referring in this response to OPINIONS and POSTS and NOT to members personally.

Kizzy is the one who 'criticised' and slurred 'Joe Public' in this post Joey, and because I am a member of 'Joe Public', I took offense at being so labelled, in such an overly simplistic and casually demeaning manner.

I am getting at no one. I am RESPONDING to posts which I do not agree with - ESPECIALLY posts such as this particular one, which ridiculously attempt to denigrate those members of the public who voted for Brexit - Not for the first time in posts by this poster either - and I am a member of the public who voted for Brexit.

"This was the problem in the USA election which must have turned off many voters there by the personal slurs on the other by each candidate.
Neither gained any moral high ground there."

The above is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in this context Joey, because I have not cast any 'Personal Slurs' against anyone, but taken into consideration with your GROUNDLESS accusation above that I am 'getting at' this poster 'again', you are beginning to appear to be disingenuously and unfairly attempting to persuade the reader that I am 'victimising' someone, and this is unforgivable.

I am merely RESPONDING to a post which I do not agree with.

"Her views areas relevant as anyone elses and just because they are at odds with yours does not make them ill informed or erroneous."


In stating the above, you are TOTALLY wrong.

In MY personal opinion, based upon MY intellect, MY knowledge, and My intuition, 'Her views are both ill informed AND erroneous and THEREFORE they are most certainly NOT relevant to me.

HOW can they be?

Do you REALLY pay CREDENCE to views and statements which with EVERY FIBRE of your being you DEEM to be WRONG?

If I said that "in my opinion the Klu Klux Klan were all nice people who were just misunderstood" - Are you REALLY gong to try to tell me that you would say that my view is as relevant as some other member who declared them to be "sick evil, racist lunatics"?

No, I would hope, that based upon YOUR intellect, YOUR knowledge, and YOUR intuition, you would say that my view of the KKK is 'ill informed and totally erroneous'

"However how the EU gets in here is a little mystifying... "

The post is about Brexit and you are 'mystified as to How the Eu gets in here' Joey?

"...but Kirk, we are all Joe Public, not just you and those you know personally.

Also the other Joe Publics equally will have people they know well, are acquaintances or who they just know of such as you list as who voted leave, who also voted remain.

You haven't a monopoly on those groups, just as no one else has who is Joe public."

None of the above is relevant at all Joey, because I do not concern myself with anyone else outside of 'my group' because I do not know them or their political leanings, nor whether they voted Brexit or not, so I would not even consider trying to speak o their behalf - Why would I??

I am concerned only with rebutting a totally ludicrous statement which demeans me personally - and those members of 'Joe Public' who I DO KNOW who also voted Brexit, and I use them to support my rebuttal that not all 'Joe Public' are as clueless as the poster insinuates in her post.

"The people who voted remain, also know what they voting foe, Joe public and all the groups who did so that you list."


The above is a redundant statement Joey, because NOWHERE do I say that those voting Remain do not know what they are voting for.

"I do have to say, I asked many questions on here just as to what leaving meant and no leave voter told me anything concrete.
The only answer I got was they didn't want the EU making our laws."

Again, the above is totally irrelevant to the context here Joey of whether 'Joe Public' is clueless or not.

"Remain voters in my view voted for the status quo,knowing how all was and would not liekly change.
Leave voters probably voted for different reasons, some just for change, some for making our own laws, some immigration, some as to the single market and some for all of those things probably too.
Not all however.

So,I wanted to try to heed what others were saying opposite to me but I got nothing concrete at all,that could persuade me that the UK would do better out of the EU.
If I could have believed that, I would have thought about my vote more.
I listened to what you and most said,( when they were not personally insulting about it).
I was one who also realised remain was not going to win and in fact kept telling you that leave would get a result.

Anyway, all the people and groups you list that you know who voted to leave is fine but that is not the only story.
Those who voted remain probably the majority of them too have the same sets of people and professions they know, and know of as well who also voted as they did,remain too.
We are all Joe public however, not just you and those you know who think like you do.
Just as I am Joe public and those I know are not the only Joe public either."


I have nort disputed any of the above Joey, but, sorry, once again, NONE of it is relevant to my post or the post which my post was a response to.

[kirklancaster]

Kirk did state 'in my opinion' before stating that the posters views on this subject on here are 'Ill informed' and 'erroneous'.A perfectly valid opinion to hold.
And he was not saying that he has some kind of 'monopoly' on knowing people of different professions.
He is replying to a very bold statement that is attempting to imply that people who voted to leave the EU are somehow 'ill informed' and are about to get some kind of big 'kick in the nads' that somehow Mystic Kizzy knows about and all of us uninformed dummies who voted to leave are totally ignorant to.
He is offering a rebuttal to this by giving examples of people from all different walks of life and all members of 'Joe public'(as all of us are) who made an informed decision when they cast their vote.

My SINCEREST thanks to you Paul for your support.

I did NOTHING but respond - CIVILLY - to yet another piss-taking, demeaning post aimed at Brexiteers.

[joeysteele]

But what makes those examples that you give of leave voters you know any more valid than those that Kirk knows?All are equally valid.There are many who researched what they were voting for aswell as many who did'nt on both sides.I don't discount your view as you shouldn't discount Kirks on those examples.There are implications on here that most leavers are unimformed or racists or xenophobes etc(i'm not saying that you've suggested that).These are offensive to leavers.
I saw no personal attacks in his post towards any person.Just an opinion on posts on here.

They are not more valid, where do I say that?
That is exactly what I was saying.

However in the post I responded to that post that does not say anywhere in there any acknowledgement of an opposing view.
Where on earth though did I say my findings were any more valid than Kirk's, it was merely another take on actual leave voters and voting.

What is sure however,in my view,is that neither him, you or I can be sure that 'everyone' who voted leave, voted for 'all' the same reasons or even just one reason.

They voted to leave yes, the make up of leaving is an entirely different thing.

By the way, there's been plenty of abuse thrown at remain voters on here too, very unpleasantly too at times.
Very much directly against myself personally as well.
Leave actually does not have a monopoly on that happening either.

[kirklancaster]

And none of this has any effect on the majority of people on both sides who likely voted what they voted for based on soundbites and sensationalism rather than solid facts.

No, but I do not care about any 'majority of people on both sides' only about myself when I am being erroneously labelled and demeaned by being 'tarred with that famous 'same brush' which some use to make sweeping and mocking generalisations about 'Joe Public' - which are both arrogantly presumptive and erroneous anyway.

[Tom4784]

No, but I do not care about any 'majority of people on both sides' only about myself when I am being erroneously labelled and demeaned by being 'tarred with that famous 'same brush' which some use to make sweeping and mocking generalisations about 'Joe Public' - which are both arrogantly presumptive and erroneous anyway.

Kirk, this isn't about you. I'm just going to repeat that for your benefit. This isn't about you. You are tarring yourself with the brush for an excuse to be outraged over something.

I said that a large number of people on both sides would have voted despite not knowing what they were actually voting for because they voted based on the headlines and soundbites. That's a true comment, most people don't understand that leaving the EU changes very little in terms of laws or Immigration yet those were the deciding factors for a lot of people who most likely didn't look into the actual issues of staying or leaving.

Expecting the public to make informed decisions based on research and impartiality is incredibly naive.

[kirklancaster]

Kirk, this isn't about you. I'm just going to repeat that for your benefit. This isn't about you. You are tarring yourself with the brush for an excuse to be outraged over something.

I said that a large number of people on both sides would have voted despite not knowing what they were actually voting for because they voted based on the headlines and soundbites. That's a true comment, most people don't understand that leaving the EU changes very little in terms of laws or Immigration yet those were the deciding factors for a lot of people who most likely didn't look into the actual issues of staying or leaving.

Expecting the public to make informed decisions based on research and impartiality is incredibly naive.

Is your first paragraph referring to Kizzy's post or your later one?

In the first instance, I'm aftaid that it WAS about me. I am a member of Joe Public.

In the second instance, it is ALSO about me, because you elected to QUOTE my post and COMMENT upon it.

Your claim that I am tarring myself with the same brush is totally ludicrous Dezzy.

The demeaning post which I rightfully objected to did not state; "Joe Public but excluding Kirk".

I need NO excuse to be outraged by some of the posts on here which repeatedly demean Brexit voters as being stupid, clueless, ill informed or worse.

The text which I have emboldened is redundant if you are addressing that to me Dezzy, because I have never stated ANYWHERE any opinion which contradicts what you say in it, and that is because I AGREE with you. Some people on BOTH sides DID vote after being persuaded by sound bites and headlines.

However, SOME people is a far cry from all 'Joe Public' - which IS what I responded to.

I will take exception to your claims below however:

"most people don't understand that leaving the EU changes very little in terms of laws or Immigration yet those were the deciding factors for a lot of people who most likely didn't look into the actual issues of staying or leaving."

Simply because NO ONE KNOWS just WHAT existing actualities will or will not be affected or changed by Brexit. We have NOT even Brexited proper yet, and the WHATEVER plans the Government is working on is not being revealed to anyone.

[Tom4784]

Is your first paragraph referring to Kizzy's post or your later one?

In the first instance, I'm aftaid that it WAS about me. I am a member of Joe Public.

In the second instance, it is ALSO about me, because you elected to QUOTE my post and COMMENT upon it.

Your claim that I am tarring myself with the same brush is totally ludicrous Dezzy.

The demeaning post which I rightfully objected to did not state; "Joe Public but excluding Kirk".

I need NO excuse to be outraged by some of the posts on here which repeatedly demean Brexit voters as being stupid, clueless, ill informed or worse.

The text which I have emboldened is redundant if you are addressing that to me Dezzy, because I have never stated ANYWHERE any opinion which contradicts what you say in it, and that is because I AGREE with you. Some people on BOTH sides DID vote after being persuaded by sound bites and headlines.

However, SOME people is a far cry from all 'Joe Public' - which IS what I responded to.

I will take exception to your claims below however:

"most people don't understand that leaving the EU changes very little in terms of laws or Immigration yet those were the deciding factors for a lot of people who most likely didn't look into the actual issues of staying or leaving."

Simply because NO ONE KNOWS just WHAT existing actualities will or will not be affected or changed by Brexit. We have NOT even Brexited proper yet, and the WHATEVER plans the Government is working on is not being revealed to anyone.

You replied to my posts, none of which referred to or acknowledged you in any way. Like I said before, what I said has nothing to do with you and if you decide to tar yourself with that brush just so you can get mad about it then that's on you.

In terms of Laws or Immigration, nothing is likely to change, especially if we wish to strike a deal to enter the single market. The only affect that the Brexit has had so far is to decrease the value of the pound which is worrying in itself considering the announcement alone did that.

[James]

..Jack_ posted this article in another thread yesterday and it's an excellent read...

https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2016/nov/16/how-trump-took-middletown-muncie-election

..I know it's only one person's take on one American 'middletown' so not necessarily a complete representative or even accurate, we don't know but it does make so much sense also and interestingly suggests that 'character' doesn't play that big a part, with some who voted for Trump possibly not even liking anything about his character, feeling he has nothing to admire about him at all or to be able to relate to etc...but more that he just doesn't represent what is felt has taken away virtually everything that 'middletowns' have been built on, stripped away generations of familiars and left a feeling of such 'abandonment'...immigration is a factor as well and all of the other things that have been mentioned over time, it's a mixture of all of it to the point of a disillusioned society and Hilary, being establishment represented that disillusionment...her 'corruption' not being such a factor and Trump's prejudices not so much either.../it's just the biggest ENOUGH..!!!!!!!!!!!...ever, in saying...where do we fit in, what happened to our world and what did you all governments do for our benefit in progression.../anyways, it's an excellent read if you have time, James...

I've skimmed that article. :hee: Here's another one that was linked on here before - http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

Some people in America will always vote Republican and some Democrat - there's a culture war. There's a group in the middle which decides which way presidential elections go, and from what I can see, I really think the main reason Trump won was that Hillary is so disliked by so many people.

It wasn't really a vote in favour of Trump, and what he's said, but a vote against Hillary. A different candidate would probably have beaten Trump.

[kirklancaster]

You replied to my posts, none of which referred to or acknowledged you in any way. Like I said before, what I said has nothing to do with you and if you decide to tar yourself with that brush just so you can get mad about it then that's on you.

WHAT??? YOU QUOTED ME FIRST AND COMMENTED - HERE IT IS:


Today, 12:15 PM #130
Dezzy
Babs
TiBB Staff

Dezzy's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 30,904

Favourites (more):
BB17: Jayne
CBB17: Tiffany Pollard
BB16: Nick
CBB15: Michelle Visage

30,000+ Posts on TiBB

20,000+ posts on TiBB

TiBB Eurovision

TiBB 5 Year award.

Pub quiz winners

TiBB Honorary Member


Total Awards: 6

Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirklancaster View Post
I am a member of 'Joe Public'and so are DOZENS of my friends and associates as are dozens more of people who I could best term 'acquaintances', and we ALL voted for Brexit.

Among these people are four Company Directors, two Doctors, two Solicitors, several Nurses, three Policemen, several Teachers, and several SME business owners, as well as dozens of 'Blue Collar Workers, several unemployed and quite a few 'Ducker And Divers'.

The one other thing which we all have in common - apart from our Brexit vote - is that ALL of us understand the real issues concerning the EU and our membership of it.

So while you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, you will forgive me if I elect not to pay heed to it, and this is based upon the fact - that in my opinion, which I am as EQUALLY entitled to - it is ALL YOUR posts which are so ill informed and erroneous as to the true facts concerning current affairs, including politics and the EU, that they attest to YOU having the woeful LACK of any REAL understanding of the issues often debated on here, NOT 'Joe Public'."

And none of this has any effect on the majority of people on both sides who likely voted what they voted for based on soundbites and sensationalism rather than solid facts.
__________________

[joeysteele]

[QUOTE=joeysteele;9063785]While I can agree with most of what you say there, it is I think unfair the criticism you make of the person you are getting at again.

NOTE: Though the distinctions are often extremely difficult to keep separate, I am referring in this response to OPINIONS and POSTS and NOT to members personally.

Kizzy is the one who 'criticised' and slurred 'Joe Public' in this post Joey, and because I am a member of 'Joe Public', I took offense at being so labelled, in such an overly simplistic and casually demeaning manner.

I am getting at no one. I am RESPONDING to posts which I do not agree with - ESPECIALLY posts such as this particular one, which ridiculously attempt to denigrate those members of the public who voted for Brexit - Not for the first time in posts by this poster either - and I am a member of the public who voted for Brexit.

"This was the problem in the USA election which must have turned off many voters there by the personal slurs on the other by each candidate.
Neither gained any moral high ground there."

The above is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in this context Joey, because I have not cast any 'Personal Slurs' against anyone, but taken into consideration with your GROUNDLESS accusation above that I am 'getting at' this poster 'again', you are beginning to appear to be disingenuously and unfairly attempting to persuade the reader that I am 'victimising' someone, and this is unforgivable.

I am merely RESPONDING to a post which I do not agree with.

"Her views areas relevant as anyone elses and just because they are at odds with yours does not make them ill informed or erroneous."


In stating the above, you are TOTALLY wrong.

In MY personal opinion, based upon MY intellect, MY knowledge, and My intuition, 'Her views are both ill informed AND erroneous and THEREFORE they are most certainly NOT relevant to me.

HOW can they be?

Do you REALLY pay CREDENCE to views and statements which with EVERY FIBRE of your being you DEEM to be WRONG?

If I said that "in my opinion the Klu Klux Klan were all nice people who were just misunderstood" - Are you REALLY gong to try to tell me that you would say that my view is as relevant as some other member who declared them to be "sick evil, racist lunatics"?

No, I would hope, that based upon YOUR intellect, YOUR knowledge, and YOUR intuition, you would say that my view of the KKK is 'ill informed and totally erroneous'

"However how the EU gets in here is a little mystifying... "

The post is about Brexit and you are 'mystified as to How the Eu gets in here' Joey?

"...but Kirk, we are all Joe Public, not just you and those you know personally.

Also the other Joe Publics equally will have people they know well, are acquaintances or who they just know of such as you list as who voted leave, who also voted remain.

You haven't a monopoly on those groups, just as no one else has who is Joe public."

None of the above is relevant at all Joey, because I do not concern myself with anyone else outside of 'my group' because I do not know them or their political leanings, nor whether they voted Brexit or not, so I would not even consider trying to speak o their behalf - Why would I??

I am concerned only with rebutting a totally ludicrous statement which demeans me personally - and those members of 'Joe Public' who I DO KNOW who also voted Brexit, and I use them to support my rebuttal that not all 'Joe Public' are as clueless as the poster insinuates in her post.

"The people who voted remain, also know what they voting foe, Joe public and all the groups who did so that you list."


The above is a redundant statement Joey, because NOWHERE do I say that those voting Remain do not know what they are voting for.

"I do have to say, I asked many questions on here just as to what leaving meant and no leave voter told me anything concrete.
The only answer I got was they didn't want the EU making our laws."

Again, the above is totally irrelevant to the context here Joey of whether 'Joe Public' is clueless or not.

"Remain voters in my view voted for the status quo,knowing how all was and would not liekly change.
Leave voters probably voted for different reasons, some just for change, some for making our own laws, some immigration, some as to the single market and some for all of those things probably too.
Not all however.

So,I wanted to try to heed what others were saying opposite to me but I got nothing concrete at all,that could persuade me that the UK would do better out of the EU.
If I could have believed that, I would have thought about my vote more.
I listened to what you and most said,( when they were not personally insulting about it).
I was one who also realised remain was not going to win and in fact kept telling you that leave would get a result.

Anyway, all the people and groups you list that you know who voted to leave is fine but that is not the only story.
Those who voted remain probably the majority of them too have the same sets of people and professions they know, and know of as well who also voted as they did,remain too.
We are all Joe public however, not just you and those you know who think like you do.
Just as I am Joe public and those I know are not the only Joe public either."


I have nort disputed any of the above Joey, but, sorry, once again, NONE of it is relevant to my post or the post which my post was a response to.

All members posts are relevant Kirk unless they insult another member.
Not just yours, mine or anyone elses.

I said how had brexit got on here because this is a Hillary Clinton thread.
A perfectly relevant question.

As to the point and raising the KKK, for goodness sake, you cannot be deemed fully accurate at all in what you say people who voted leave actually were voting for.
All they voted for was to leave as members of the EU nothing more was on that ballot paper.

Many issues revolve around that and they were not asked about those sets of individual issues.

Of course anyone could say the KKK is a bad organisation, we know that for sure from all their activities, you however just as I do not either, cannot say with full confidence that everyone who voted leave from Joe public, voted for one issue, several or a whole host of them.or that many just voted for change.

You cannot speak for all who voted leave,not at all.
So no points are irrelevant from others as you try to make out and none are erroneous or ill informed.

Also it is totally relevant to have included the USA election in that post as this is related to Hillary Clinton and that election anyway as a thread.
I said the getting at people likely turned off voters and the example then on here as getting at someone just because of an opposing view, is also a turn off to real and reasoned debate.

Your reference to the other member described their posts,all their posts not just one, 'all posts' from politics to foreign affairs and the EU, were ill informed and erroneous.
Showing a woeful lack of understanding on the issues by that member'.
Your words.

That is hardly showing any respect to that member at all who actually never mentioned you anyway in theirs.

Leave has not the monopoly on right as to the way to leave, only that we should leave as members of the EU.
All of Joe public have to live in the UK not just the leave voters.

There are going to be many roads and ways and separate issues as to leaving, you have not the right one, I have not the right one, and in fact it seems 'no one' has any idea at present what the right one is anyway.

[Tom4784]

WHAT??? YOU QUOTED ME FIRST AND COMMENTED - HERE IT IS:


Today, 12:15 PM #130
Dezzy
Babs
TiBB Staff

Dezzy's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 30,904

Favourites (more):
BB17: Jayne
CBB17: Tiffany Pollard
BB16: Nick
CBB15: Michelle Visage

30,000+ Posts on TiBB

20,000+ posts on TiBB

TiBB Eurovision

TiBB 5 Year award.

Pub quiz winners

TiBB Honorary Member


Total Awards: 6

Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirklancaster View Post
I am a member of 'Joe Public'and so are DOZENS of my friends and associates as are dozens more of people who I could best term 'acquaintances', and we ALL voted for Brexit.

Among these people are four Company Directors, two Doctors, two Solicitors, several Nurses, three Policemen, several Teachers, and several SME business owners, as well as dozens of 'Blue Collar Workers, several unemployed and quite a few 'Ducker And Divers'.

The one other thing which we all have in common - apart from our Brexit vote - is that ALL of us understand the real issues concerning the EU and our membership of it.

So while you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, you will forgive me if I elect not to pay heed to it, and this is based upon the fact - that in my opinion, which I am as EQUALLY entitled to - it is ALL YOUR posts which are so ill informed and erroneous as to the true facts concerning current affairs, including politics and the EU, that they attest to YOU having the woeful LACK of any REAL understanding of the issues often debated on here, NOT 'Joe Public'."

And none of this has any effect on the majority of people on both sides who likely voted what they voted for based on soundbites and sensationalism rather than solid facts.
__________________

Just because you didn't quote my post doesn't mean that post wasn't aimed at me for saying that a lot of the public are uninformed and don't pay attention to the actual issues.

[Niamh.]

I've skimmed that article. :hee: Here's another one that was linked on here before - http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

Some people in America will always vote Republican and some Democrat - there's a culture war. There's a group in the middle which decides which way presidential elections go, and from what I can see, I really think the main reason Trump won was that Hillary is so disliked by so many people.

It wasn't really a vote in favour of Trump, and what he's said, but a vote against Hillary. A different candidate would probably have beaten Trump.

I agree with that too. It is "anecdotal" of course but while I was over there practically every person we spoke to, spoke of how much they disliked both candidates but disliked Hillary more...alot more

[James]

It went back and forth for ages iirc and plus it doesn't really disprove what I'm saying about a lot of people not really being informed.

Brexit mostly became a vote on immigration by the end although leaving the EU would have little effect on our immigration policies. Most people likely voted Leave or Remain on that issue alone although neither option would have an affect on it. That's rather uninformed.

I'd say the Leave vote was the product of 25+ years of Euroscepticism and negative coverage about the European Union / Community, and moves for ever-closer union.

[kirklancaster]

Just because you didn't quote my post doesn't mean that post wasn't aimed at me for saying that a lot of the public are uninformed and don't pay attention to the actual issues.

Is this Dezzy evasive speak for: "Yes I was WRONG Kirk, I DID quote you first and commented, so you are 100% CORRECT"?

And can you PLEASE interpret what it is you are EXACTLY saying below Dezzy because I honestly do not know, so I cannot respond.

"Just because you didn't quote my post doesn't mean that post wasn't aimed at me for saying that a lot of the public are uninformed and don't pay attention to the actual issues."

WHICH post of yours out of the hundreds which I have NOT quoted are you referring to?

Why would I aim any post at you WITHOUT quoting - THAT is not my style.

All that I am TRYING to do on here - as ALWAYS - is debate HONESTLY and FAIRLY and CIVILLY without being drawn into personal arguments.

[kirklancaster]

[QUOTE=kirklancaster;9063850]

All members posts are relevant Kirk unless they insult another member.
Not just yours, mine or anyone elses.

I said how had brexit got on here because this is a Hillary Clinton thread.
A perfectly relevant question.

As to the point and raising the KKK, for goodness sake, you cannot be deemed fully accurate at all in what you say people who voted leave actually were voting for.
All they voted for was to leave as members of the EU nothing more was on that ballot paper.

Many issues revolve around that and they were not asked about those sets of individual issues.

Of course anyone could say the KKK is a bad organisation, we know that for sure from all their activities, you however just as I do not either, cannot say with full confidence that everyone who voted leave from Joe public, voted for one issue, several or a whole host of them.or that many just voted for change.

You cannot speak for all who voted leave,not at all.
So no points are irrelevant from others as you try to make out and none are erroneous or ill informed.

Also it is totally relevant to have included the USA election in that post as this is related to Hillary Clinton and that election anyway as a thread.
I said the getting at people likely turned off voters and the example then on here as getting at someone just because of an opposing view, is also a turn off to real and reasoned debate.

Your reference to the other member described their posts,all their posts not just one, '[B]all posts' from politics to foreign affairs and the EU, were ill informed and erroneous.
Showing a woeful lack of understanding on the issues by that member'.
Your words.

That is hardly showing any respect to that member at all who actually never mentioned you anyway in theirs.

eave has not the monopoly on right as to the way to leave, only that we should leave as members of the EU.
All of Joe public have to live in the UK not just the leave voters.

There are going to be many roads and ways and separate issues as to leaving, you have not the right one, I have not the right one, and in fact it seems 'no one' has any idea at present what the right one is anyway.

I am sorry Joey, but you are meandering way off the subject under discussion - which is my response to Kizzy's post - and the subsequent baffling and mainly irrelevant responses to that are just too time-consuming for me to respond to.

So I will leave it here with respect Joey.

[Cherie]

[And none of this has any effect on the majority of people on both sides who likely voted what they voted for based on soundbites and sensationalism rather than solid facts. ]

I like that Dezzy
have you ever worked as a PA?

I would hire you

Is that my job you are offering Dezzy :shocked:

[Northern Monkey]

They are not more valid, where do I say that?
That is exactly what I was saying.

However in the post I responded to that post that does not say anywhere in there any acknowledgement of an opposing view.
Where on earth though did I say my findings were any more valid than Kirk's, it was merely another take on actual leave voters and voting.

What is sure however,in my view,is that neither him, you or I can be sure that 'everyone' who voted leave, voted for 'all' the same reasons or even just one reason.

They voted to leave yes, the make up of leaving is an entirely different thing.

By the way, there's been plenty of abuse thrown at remain voters on here too, very unpleasantly too at times.
Very much directly against myself personally as well.
Leave actually does not have a monopoly on that happening either.It seems we agree that many leave voters made an informed and researched decision just as many didn't.
You began your post with -
"I actually totally have to disagree that informed decisions were made in voting, on both sides too, although those voting remain knew things would probably go on as before."
And then continued with examples of people you know who voted leave without any or many actual reasons.
Maybe if you'd said 'I actually totally have to disagree that informed decisions were made in voting FROM SOME leave voters' then I wouldn't have misunderstood your meaning.

Kirks post didn't have any acknowledgement of an opposing view because he was giving a rebuttal with examples of leavers who he knows to a post which was covertly implying 'Joe public'(people who voted leave) were uninformed idiots who were about to get some big shock or 'kick in the nads'.

The rest of your post I agree with.Although i haven't seen you abused Personally it may have happened.

[Northern Monkey]

My SINCEREST thanks to you Paul for your support.

I did NOTHING but respond - CIVILLY - to yet another piss-taking, demeaning post aimed at Brexiteers.No problem.We have to restore balance to the force sometimes:laugh:

[Northern Monkey]

And none of this has any effect on the majority of people on both sides who likely voted what they voted for based on soundbites and sensationalism rather than solid facts.You can't possibly know that.Despite what you might think.Most people aren't brainless drones in this country.Yes there are people like that but saying 'the majority' are is pure conjecture.
I would think the majority did a little digging themselves since the internet is now a thing.

[kirklancaster]

No problem.We have to restore balance to the force sometimes:laugh:

:laugh:

[joeysteele]

It seems we agree that many leave voters made an informed and researched decision just as many didn't.
You began your post with -
"I actually totally have to disagree that informed decisions were made in voting, on both sides too, although those voting remain knew things would probably go on as before."
And then continued with examples of people you know who voted leave without any or many actual reasons.
Maybe if you'd said 'I actually totally have to disagree that informed decisions were made in voting FROM SOME leave voters' then I wouldn't have misunderstood your meaning.

Kirks post didn't have any acknowledgement of an opposing view because he was giving a rebuttal with examples of leavers who he knows to a post which was covertly implying 'Joe public'(people who voted leave) were uninformed idiots who were about to get some big shock or 'kick in the nads'.

The rest of your post I agree with.Although i haven't seen you abused Personally it may have happened.

I am rather confused that there was any difficulty in understanding my statement.
Since I myself included no quantifying at all of the comment because like everyone else, I do not know how many voted that were in fact who could be termed not informed.
Hence no figures of any quantity even as to minority, half or majority in my post at all.

Just as I equally, which is why I also included both for leave and remain in my posts, have no idea if the minority, half or majority, of remain voters voted remain with the full knowledge of the workings of the EU itself either.

With respect neither have you or anyone else as to that.

Also finally, the abuse I mentioned did happen, not 'may have happened', it did,since I was on the receiving end I know it did.

I was hammered on here accused of being someone who pestered people and invaded their privacy by canvassing knocking at their doors during the EU referendum, a duty I and hoards of other people were supposed to carry out as a part of a canvassing team.
Just to mention one instance.

You didn't see it, so you just say maybe it happened, it did happen.
I balance my views on here whenever can, I never need to make anything up.

However,I have held back as a member on here but the getting at done on here,jumping at any little thing for whatever reasons,is a turn off.
Some are getting a raw deal just for who they are on the forum, that is sad to see anywhere, not just on this forum.
So I felt the need to defend someone today just as it seems you did too.

Except no insults were flying from me as to all their posts on any of the points I made or raised.

[empire]

there are good reason's why people did not want her to lead the country, she said that america will go to war with russia in syria, and then she would try her luck to roll the tanks over the russian border, she said that Iran needs to be destroyed, when Iran is no threat to anyone, and many american voters had alot in the backs of their heads, why was she so persistent to remove gaddafi from power, when he had a very strong relationship with america, and his country was very stable under his rule, and why was she to appoint a member of the muslim brotherhood to the highest position of power in the country, and chelsea clinton living in a new york apartment that cost 11 million dollars, where did she get the money for that, and why is her foudation getting money from a country that has the worst human rights records and has gay people executed, its very fishy that liberal groups turn a blind eye to it and then say that trump is a danger to there freedom, I wonder who feeds their apple cart, alot of american voters knew that there was something not right about how the democrats got hillary into the leadership win over bernie sanders.

[Northern Monkey]

I am rather confused that there was any difficulty in understanding my statement.
Since I myself included no quantifying at all of the comment because like everyone else, I do not know how many voted that were in fact who could be termed not informed.
Hence no figures of any quantity even as to minority, half or majority in my post at all.

Just as I equally, which is why I also included both for leave and remain in my posts, have no idea if the minority, half or majority, of remain voters voted remain with the full knowledge of the workings of the EU itself either.

With respect neither have you or anyone else as to that.

Also finally, the abuse I mentioned did happen, not 'may have happened', it did,since I was on the receiving end I know it did.

I was hammered on here accused of being someone who pestered people and invaded their privacy by canvassing knocking at their doors during the EU referendum, a duty I and hoards of other people were supposed to carry out as a part of a canvassing team.
Just to mention one instance.

You didn't see it, so you just say maybe it happened, it did happen.
I balance my views on here whenever can, I never need to make anything up.

However,I have held back as a member on here but the getting at done on here,jumping at any little thing for whatever reasons,is a turn off.
Some are getting a raw deal just for who they are on the forum, that is sad to see anywhere, not just on this forum.
So I felt the need to defend someone today just as it seems you did too.

Except no insults were flying from me as to all their posts on any of the points I made or raised.Yeah,When i said 'it may have happened' I wasn't doubting that it did.Maybe i worded that incorrectly.I do believe you that it did and i don't think you make anything up.I often enjoy and learn much from your posts.I was just saying that I didn't see it.I also try and stay out of all the drama and bickering on here(i get enough of that irl from the misses:laugh:).However i believe you Possibly misunderstood or misrepresented Kirks post in saying he was trying to have some kind of 'monopoly' in knowing people on the leave side from all different backgrounds when this was not the case.He was simply refuting an imo underhanded dig at leave voters.
Anyway i'm sure we'll all be warring about some other issue in a few weeks and then CBB.It's all entertainment.

[Brillopad]

:joker::joker::joker:....No. joe public does not have a clue what is about to theoretically knee him in the nads concerning brexit.

Don't know what life experiences you have, or what type of Joe public you know, but many from my experience know enough. You don't have to be a 'political expert' to have valid views on the subject.


Please don't judge everyone by your own standards! :joker:

[Maru]

I think as this section has demonstrated multiple times, politics is neither a straight forward, clean, nor cut and dry affair. US politics in particular is extremely complex and many people are aware there are numerous theaters of thought going around at any time during any election. Much of it happens out of her view and you have to attend things in person (like council meetings) to figure out who is in the same ballpark as your view. So if it seems like voters make decisions based on soundbytes and general narratives in the media, that is understandable because sometimes that last word of what we hear in the media has weight as something of a footnote when it comes to deciding which way to vote . However, I think that many people understand a lot of topics in the media quite deeply, especially those who actually vote... it's just that you don't hear their voices because they don't come on message boards or FB to vent their affair. US politics is a very messy affair and to say just one thing on social media about it is to invite the fanatic who wants to post 50 YT videos on the subject to sway their reader base (it's never about the poster, it's about them).

Most people here keep the politics to close family members, local clubs (like charities), unions (like I now participate in thanks to a client), other organizations (like HOA's, animal rescue organizations), work with close intimate team works and lastly... the dinner table. If you're a university student, then it's your classroom (especially liberal arts), your hallways, your posters and every other person out in the public with posters and media. Politics is integral to the functioning of our democracy. To dumb it all down to soundbytes in the media and general ignorance doesn't do justice to the realities of how politics functions in the democracies we participate in today... this forum is a drop in the bucket compared to the conversations we have in the streets today. Maybe in local area, it's a taboo thing to discuss, but in the US... not taboo at all. Having an opinion or exercising freedom of speech is being American.

Anyway, I always give people the benefit of the doubt to those who oppose me just simply based on the fact their living circumstances are likely not to be equal to my own and there's benefit to hearing multiple views on a subject matter, especially those more experienced in life. Though good to see that there are a few that see the shades of things that I am able to see (and have experienced) in my relatively short life. That to me is a sign that those particular ideas are still traveling around within people's spheres. I used to think of EU as a very liberal and progressive place compared to the US... however, since being on this board, I've learned that is in fact not the case, and that EU (UK) in particular has just as many views as we do in the US. Naturally, depending on where you live, your major views will shift...

I usually take issue with threads such as this, normally, where commentators take cheap shots at the opposing base(s) on their soapboxes. It's a rather cheap and low rent view on things, but then let's think about this... I liken these people to shock jokes--merely saying things to get attention. But hey, it works doesn't it? This cockwomble (that's a hilarious ****ing name btw, I'm keeping it) was recently featured on CNN when citing the "alt right". Still, they cited this movement as 1-3% of Trump's voting block. Something I really question if it is truly that low.

It's the cockwombles like these dudes that drive controversy and drive up the stagnant earth to crack and crumble around weak ideas or unchallenged ideas just waiting to be tested in our political sphere. We have them on both the right and left, and they know best just how to troll the media, as they not only have the means but the willpower to do so with focus and without restraint.

Our mainstream media, the slowest one in the room, still, is trying to wrap it's head around this election result. They just can't quite get a good grasp on what exactly the alt right is (Glenn Beck had this conversation the other day), what it actually stands for and what type of influence it has had on sections of our public. 1-3% is still a really low estimate imo of how many Trump voters are being influenced by the alt right. These videos get a lot of views and attention, otherwise they wouldn't be cited so frequently (in social media) and I can almost guarantee they were all over FB before early voting opened... because I know how often this information gets picked up, travels and picks up traffic. It's actually my job to analyze this for my clients.

If the mainstream media has one job, it's to dumb it all down to the lowest common denominator. So if CNN and all these other major outlets are having trouble still dumbing this down, this should speak volumes. Their true spots and colors are showing, because they can't just wrap it up in a nice pretty bow and standard narrative anymore. They actually have to work for their story (:laugh:). I mean go figure.

I'll give them credit, they're definitely trying. However, they've had more than a few hosts on there with sour oats because they couldn't figure out how to make it plain and clear to the banal individuals out there. I think just about anyone knows there's more to the story. Hence why most people just stay quiet about some things, particularly their opinion on these issues. It's these cockwombles, movements and other assorted groups that are creating the mega earthquakes in our political sphere atm... not the mainstream... the mainstream would be happy to move to the center of gravity when it comes to these discussions, but as they learned on November 9th, to do so opens them up to some liabilities, so they actually now have to cover **** more instead of just finding some pretty narrative to stand behind. We are not living in a period of cut and dry politics and narratives anymore. The media can't get away with this anymore thanks to the internet (primarily) and increased populist politics circulating in our everyday society(ies).

I've been watching mainstream since election day and short of paving over the ruin with more fresh cement and trying to start back over after this last reset, which only works temporarily, they are clearly having a difficult time painting a clear and balanced picture of just what happened on November 9th. I noticed some self-deprecation on the part of the hosts on TV as of late... they were honest in saying they clearly dropped the ball on this movement.

I'll post this about Glenn Beck. He had a great deal of humble soup to share around and actually... this should give you some idea of just how much these politics (partially fueled by cockwombles) is affecting the way mainstream media delivers their stories.

Sjqea1QlOOo

Oa4O8s8R_-E

Qbs16OR2m5Y

Anyway, these cockwombles have a very important function in our media (non-mainstream) than we often give them credit for. As much as I dislike the method to their madness.

[kirklancaster]

I think as this section has demonstrated multiple times, politics is neither a straight forward, clean, nor cut and dry affair. US politics in particular is extremely complex and many people are aware there are numerous theaters of thought going around at any time during any election. Much of it happens out of her view and you have to attend things in person (like council meetings) to figure out who is in the same ballpark as your view. So if it seems like voters make decisions based on soundbytes and general narratives in the media, that is understandable because sometimes that last word of what we hear in the media has weight as something of a footnote when it comes to deciding which way to vote . However, I think that many people understand a lot of topics in the media quite deeply, especially those who actually vote... it's just that you don't hear their voices because they don't come on message boards or FB to vent their affair. US politics is a very messy affair and to say just one thing on social media about it is to invite the fanatic who wants to post 50 YT videos on the subject to sway their reader base (it's never about the poster, it's about them).

Most people here keep the politics to close family members, local clubs (like charities), unions (like I now participate in thanks to a client), other organizations (like HOA's, animal rescue organizations), work with close intimate team works and lastly... the dinner table. If you're a university student, then it's your classroom (especially liberal arts), your hallways, your posters and every other person out in the public with posters and media. Politics integral to the functioning of our democracy. To dumb it all down to soundbytes in the media and general ignorance doesn't do justice to the realities of how politics functions in the democracies we participate in today... this forum is a drop in the bucket compared to the conversations we have in the streets today. Maybe in local area, it's a taboo thing to discuss, but in the US... not taboo at all. Having an opinion or exercising freedom of speech is being American.

Anyway, I always give people the benefit of the doubt to those who oppose me just simply based on the fact their living circumstances are likely not to be equal to my own and there's benefit to hearing multiple views on a subject matter, especially those more experienced in life. Though good to see that there are a few that see the shades of things that I am able to see (and have experienced) in my relatively short life. That to me is a sign that those particular ideas are still traveling around within people's spheres. I used to think of EU as a very liberal and progressive place compared to the US... however, since being on this board, I've learned that is in fact not the case, and that EU (UK) in particular has just as many views as we do in the US. Naturally, depending on where you live, your major views will shift...

I usually take issue with threads such as this, normally, where commentators take cheap shots at the opposing base(s) on their soapboxes. It's a rather cheap and low rent view on things, but then let's think about this... I liken these people to shock jokes--merely saying things to get attention. But hey, it works doesn't it? This cockwomble (that's a hilarious ****ing name btw, I'm keeping it) was recently featured on CNN when citing the "alt right". Still, they cited this movement as 1-3% of Trump's voting block. Something I really question if it is truly that low.

It's the cockwombles like these dudes that drive controversy and drive up the stagnant earth to crack and crumble around weak ideas or unchallenged ideas just waiting to be tested in our political sphere. We have them on both the right and left, and they know best just how to troll the media, as they not only have the means but the willpower to do so with focus and without restraint.

Our mainstream media, the slowest one in the room, still, is trying to wrap it's head around this election result. They just can't quite get a good grasp on what exactly the alt right is (Glenn Beck had this conversation the other day), what it actually stands for and what type of influence it has had on sections of our public. 1-3% is still a really low estimate imo of how many Trump voters are being influenced by the alt right. These videos get a lot of views and attention, otherwise they wouldn't be cited so frequently (in social media) and I can almost guarantee they were all over FB before early voting opened... because I know how often this information gets picked up, travels and picks up traffic. It's actually my job to analyze this for my clients.

If the mainstream media has one job, it's to dumb it all down to the lowest common denominator. So if CNN and all these other major outlets are having trouble still dumbing this down, this should speak volumes. Their true spots and colors are showing, because they can't just wrap it up in a nice pretty bow and standard narrative anymore. They actually have to work for their story (:laugh:). I mean go figure.

I'll give them credit, they're definitely trying. However, they've had more than a few hosts on there with sour oats because they couldn't figure out how to make it plain and clear to the banal individuals out there. I think just about anyone knows there's more to the story. Hence why most people just stay quiet about some things, particularly their opinion on these issues. It's these cockwombles, movements and other assorted groups that are creating the mega earthquakes in our political sphere atm... not the mainstream... the mainstream would be happy to move to the center of gravity when it comes to these discussions, but as they learned on November 9th, to do so opens them up to some liabilities, so they actually now have to cover **** more instead of just finding some pretty narrative to stand behind. We are not living in a period of cut and dry politics and narratives anymore. The media can't get away with this anymore thanks to the internet (primarily) and increased populist politics circulating in our everyday society(ies).

I've been watching mainstream since election day and short of paving over the ruin with more fresh cement and trying to start back over after this last reset, which only works temporarily, they are clearly having a difficult time painting a clear and balanced picture of just what happened on November 9th. I noticed some self-deprecation on the part of the hosts on TV as of late... they were honest in saying they clearly dropped the ball on this movement.

I'll post this about Glenn Beck. He had a great deal of humble soup to share around and actually... this should give you some idea of just how much these politics (partially fueled by cockwombles) is affecting the way mainstream media delivers their stories.

Sjqea1QlOOo

Oa4O8s8R_-E

Qbs16OR2m5Y

Anyway, these cockwombles have a very important function in our media (non-mainstream) than we often give them credit for. As much as I dislike the method to their madness.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:Phew!!! You CERTAINLY are a very, very, gifted writer Maru, and your intellect leaps out from every paragraph.

I cannot think about that term; 'Cockwomble' without involuntarily breaking into a smile - I think it was BlackDagger who used it, and he has a very dry wit.

Great post again Maru.

[Tom4784]

Is this Dezzy evasive speak for: "Yes I was WRONG Kirk, I DID quote you first and commented, so you are 100% CORRECT"?

And can you PLEASE interpret what it is you are EXACTLY saying below Dezzy because I honestly do not know, so I cannot respond.

"Just because you didn't quote my post doesn't mean that post wasn't aimed at me for saying that a lot of the public are uninformed and don't pay attention to the actual issues."

WHICH post of yours out of the hundreds which I have NOT quoted are you referring to?

Why would I aim any post at you WITHOUT quoting - THAT is not my style.

All that I am TRYING to do on here - as ALWAYS - is debate HONESTLY and FAIRLY and CIVILLY without being drawn into personal arguments.

Evasive? not even slightly. Your post that I quoted was obviously referring to the point I made about the uninformed masses then you tried to make out that I called you uninformed even though I didn't because you were looking for a reason to be offended.

[Tom4784]

You can't possibly know that.Despite what you might think.Most people aren't brainless drones in this country.Yes there are people like that but saying 'the majority' are is pure conjecture.
I would think the majority did a little digging themselves since the internet is now a thing.

And I think it's naive to think that most voters take the time to understand the issues. They don't, it's so unrealistic to think that most people on any side make informed choices.

[the truth]

And I think it's naive to think that most voters take the time to understand the issues. They don't, it's so unrealistic to think that most people on any side make informed choices.

brexitors did more so than bremainiacs. the bankrupt nations the endless unemployment, the open borders and radical terrorism, the massive lies of the mass media, the corporate tax dodging cartels , the endless illegal arms trading, the paid off lobbyists, the mass over population etc etc

[Brillopad]

And I think it's naive to think that most voters take the time to understand the issues. They don't, it's so unrealistic to think that most people on any side make informed choices.

Do you see yourself as coming under the umbrella of 'most people'. You seem to think this does not apply to you. Please enlighten me as to why!

[the truth]

Do you see yourself as coming under the umbrella of 'most people'. You seem to think this does not apply to you. Please enlighten me as to why!

For some bizarre reason bremainiacs seem to think they are wholly superior to all the brexiteers. The truth is the exact opposite.:joker:

[Raph]

Thanks for sharing! The intolerant liberals are the reason trump won this election hands down. I am a liberal and a democrat but the way other liberals act in America made me want trump to win this election, and I'm glad he did.

[Tom4784]

Do you see yourself as coming under the umbrella of 'most people'. You seem to think this does not apply to you. Please enlighten me as to why!

You're asking me to explain the blatantly obvious.

Go ask most people who voted in the last election and ask them if they know who their local MP is and what their stances are on various issues. I'm telling you now that most people won't know or care. That's being uninformed.

Brexit was pretty much decided on the issue of immigration despite the fact that neither possibility would have changed immigration for better or worse thus the people who voted Remain or Leave based on that are uninformed.

People voted for Trump because he represented a mindset that appealed to them or they opposed Hillary or the soundbites of building walls to keep rapists and muslims out appealed to them. I imagine very few people voted for him based on his policies, most of which benefit the 1% and is predicted to be disastrous for the middle and working classes of America. People voted for him because of who he is, not what he'd bring to the table. That's being uninformed.

I'm not uninformed as are most people here because we all take time to look into the issues we discuss. It's rather naive to believe that everyone puts in the same effort as we do.

I noticed you didn't brign anything to the discussion with that post aside from an attempt to get a personal dig in though. You should consider trying to add something of value to discussions in the future.

[Maru]

You're asking me to explain the blatantly obvious.

Go ask most people who voted in the last election and ask them if they know who their local MP is and what their stances are on various issues. I'm telling you now that most people won't know or care. That's being uninformed.

Brexit was pretty much decided on the issue of immigration despite the fact that neither possibility would have changed immigration for better or worse thus the people who voted Remain or Leave based on that are uninformed.

People voted for Trump because he represented a mindset that appealed to them or they opposed Hillary or the soundbites of building walls to keep rapists and muslims out appealed to them. I imagine very few people voted for him based on his policies, most of which benefit the 1% and is predicted to be disastrous for the middle and working classes of America. People voted for him because of who he is, not what he'd bring to the table. That's being uninformed.

I'm not uninformed as are most people here because we all take time to look into the issues we discuss. It's rather naive to believe that everyone puts in the same effort as we do.

I noticed you didn't brign anything to the discussion with that post aside from an attempt to get a personal dig in though. You should consider trying to add something of value to discussions in the future.

There’s a difference between uniformed and ill informed. I agree, people should aspire to look up each individual candidates’ positions. However, personally, this research can only be so effective, as many of these all important policies and promises are often forgotten once elected. (I should know, I follow these developments post-election) Many candidates end up falling in line with their party once elected or just continue with tried and tested politics with randomly injected experimentation per their party—if they’re not an incumbent and need to show efficacy.

This leads to a lot of disillusionment on the part of the voter in terms of what information/facts are most relevant/useful to deciding the best choice on their ballot. That’s why major platforms are so effective and it’s also why we have a party system in place… to keep these agendas more or less stream lined and in line with the different thought groups in politics. In my experience, democrats in Houston are different than democrats in MD… that said, the two are still similar socially speaking ... and this would be really the only pertinent information to gather from a candidate’s platform seeing as you can’t really verify “Well we want to reorganize the way we record our records… “ ok… but how do you verify how it was run before? How do we know this is a good position? What was wrong with the other system? Did they lose records? :laugh: Begin the hours of googling one minor talking point…

Anyway, the way a campaign here is run is complicated. Many are compare and contrast campaigns. Half the time you don’t know what they will do once they’re in. It’s either they are for or against something… ok, but if they are “for” something, what exactly will they do in contrast? :think: (Hint: Specifics and political campaigns don’t exactly go together)

You can go to campaign events, and sometimes you will get very helpful information… on the other hand, you may at best obtain a veneer or just a mirroring of one's party positions. From a digital perspective, in the recent election I looked at the website of each member on every ticket (of which there were numerous)… very few had websites setup (unheard of in this age of digital literacy). Of the ones that were functioning and had the actual positions, most had maybe only a handful of major positions they were running on. Most matched the general party platform. No need to see the website. :shrug:

Most American news is contrast-based as well, so you can get a reasonable idea of the differences of platforms from not only watching the news over the years, but past experience as it relates to those issues... which I argue has far more power in someone's vote rather than political talking points… even if the individual candidates themselves are not cited, in practice it is true that parties stick together...

In terms of facts and actual helpful information: I argue 1st hand knowledge or otherwise having been around people in the community who have dealt with these issues face to face have more effect on a vote than the media or a candidacy. Again, this is local, but in Texas, in our local communities, many people associate or socialize with some sort of thought group who subscribes to certain beliefs and they will have conversations or talk about local events and how it affects them. Often times, especially at work, and especially in my field and my husband’s… we know many people who deal in politics. Many know a neighbor in the city who is active or has had access to this anecdotal knowledge. So that is where they get their research to some degree... which is these conversations that happen more frequently here than many places. So in how things are really managed. This is the valuable information that most people consider most helpful to deciding their vote… is usually based on a lifetime of experiences, anecdotal experiences, cumulative sources in the news (through years of watching and reading) and having seen other campaigns occasionally and listening to spokespeople/sheriffs/other major political figures talk on the news... this decides their POV for the most part. Having looked at many platforms, I can say this would not change had they seen all their websites and positions... as most don't feel their vote will be earth-shattering and in their minds, they would rather they vote in a way it counted. Straight ticket for some... or based on contrast and compare campaigns.

It’s not helpful to know the policy positions of a candidate, as you don’t really understand the cause and effect of said policies without first hand experience in knowing how those policies can have a positive/negative effect so you can ask penetrating questions to the candidate on how they would choose to implement it (if you can get a straight forward answer)…

For example, I know locally we had a sheriff who ran on fiscal responsibility… that was his platform. He made the numbers look “right”, but in actuality he was bleeding the department dry and the workforce that was bled as a result of the mismanagement has accumulated after every single bid to now a watershed. Though, you can’t see this without having that first hand knowledge. Most people get the facade, and because people here know talk is cheap, this is more relevant to them than talking points.

So I think that many people vote a straight ticket for numerous reasons and for the most part, I think they are sound reasons. Though I disagree with this method, we are fairly well versed in party politics and it makes sense from the perspective of the cynical American voter. It’s not so simple to say “How dare they not know every individual in govt”, they are uninformed!... however, they may pay attention the party or platforms that are in place… which tbqf, have a lot more individual influence than the running of our country, even in our local council… as our govt is meant to function with party control now, as an intertwined machine and not so much focus on the individual.

Even if you vote in a wildcard candidate, it’s hard to see what you would get from this as 1) That person could fail to have influence where you want it overall because of red tape (due to party control/gerrymandering) and 2) Running this sort of campaign is fiscally and emotionally expensive, so it would be hard for them to get re-elected without a spotlight… so what often happens is people look at the opposing well-known party candidate… well, he often takes positions you dislike even more (which both parties are schitzophrenic, value-wise to each other)… so you’re in a catch 22. Either way you lose.

Most positions where I looked at individually, there wasn’t really any viable opposition (no websites, no campaign, hardly visible on google… :shrug: … so better to be informed about the party’s activities at the local level (which many people are), rather than the individual candidates. For example, in Houston I am fine with the blue candidates in social positions or running the city (mayor) –as long as they don’t bankrupt the city :laugh:… but in places like the jail, where I know there has been rampant mismanagement by Team blue, I vote red. I also vote red on justices because I believe in the death penalty, but a hand slap. When I’ve looked at the individual websites for these individuals… pretty much all typical party positions. Occasionally, they had some individual focuses on things such “well we’d like to do this to limit this”… but those are rare and honestly, unless I am well-versed in the way that system works (would have to spend all day learning about how courts handle cases as if I’m to become paralegal), I have no way of verifying whether this is a good policy/platform, etc…

Anyway, most Americans are very cynical and fickle voters. Though admittedly, the US’ voting base is quite apathetic compared to other 1st world countries… I think last election was a record low in fact. Still, we’re only concerned here about actual voters and I think that you’re missing the forest for the trees. Most of our politics is a domino effect, is becoming as complicated as our tax code (thanks to injecting social issues in every candidacy…even railroad commissioner :laugh: ) … at the base of it, if it’s not about how you think a sheriff should be a sheriff (if you know nothing about being a LEO), as much as it’s about what effects you in particular and for most voters, that’s what they care about… so why stress the minutia? It’s easier in those cases for most people to vote party than to pretend as if they understand how a railroad works, etc. If people are unhappy of the state of their community, whether there is word of mouth (positive or not) or there being major issues that need to be addressed… aside from platforms, that voter's enthusiasm is going to shift one way or another. However, that’s how most people get their information—is word of mouth and by following the local media and current events in some form. So I think ill-informed—yes—but really, it depends on what it is… and how much does it really even matter to you and I when our government is a two party system that favors the elite?

[Maru]

:clap1::clap1::clap1:Phew!!! You CERTAINLY are a very, very, gifted writer Maru, and your intellect leaps out from every paragraph.

I cannot think about that term; 'Cockwomble' without involuntarily breaking into a smile - I think it was BlackDagger who used it, and he has a very dry wit.

Great post again Maru.

Cockwomble... it just rolls off the tongue :laugh:... (omg, that sounded really dirty :facepalm:)

[kirklancaster]

Cockwomble... it just rolls off the tongue :laugh:... (omg, that sounded really dirty :facepalm:)

:laugh: It's a mutually beneficial GOOD thing - this relationship between us on this side of the 'pond' and you on the other, don't you think Maru?

You give us eloquent and comprehensive insights into the American way of life and politics, and in exchange, we give you the word 'Cockwomble'. :laugh:

Keep posting. I love reading them.

[kirklancaster]

I'd say the Leave vote was the product of 25+ years of Euroscepticism and negative coverage about the European Union / Community, and moves for ever-closer union.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: And add to those excellent valid reasons, the direct personal experience over decades, of we 'older' members, of one revelation after another about how corrupt and wasteful the EU is, and how we witnessed the decimation of our Farming and Fishing industries, and how increasingly became the realisation, that we were receiving negative ROI's - Return on Our Investment - as far as all those hundreds of billions of pounds of tax-payers hard earned money which was used to pay our membership of the Brussels scamfest, and a thousand other reasons.

[Ammi]

..I think that we're (voters that is..)..are all informed as much as we feel we need to be informed or can be because it's so often the case as well that people effected most with any government in many countries etc are those whose lives are quite a struggle anyway.../struggling with low incomes../with cost of living rises and worrying how they'll manage../with families and needs that have to be met etc...these are always the people to worry about most I think so obviously would want to feel confidently 'informed' in their voting decisions and what things would mean to them but then that's conflicted though with the time that many have available to inform themselves, so a bit of a catch really...working/looking after families/working out how to make it all work and add up etc...so yeah, information to inform is always available but not always able to be sought.../I think it can also work the other way though as well and being 'too informed' and equally as confusing in making decisions because it's such an overload and over-thinking and over-thinking and etc...anyway, democracy never required informed, it just requited a vote so even the smallest of reasons for a vote of whatever has to be equally valid...

...anyways with both Brexit and Trump, I think the similarity has been that because they're both essentially votes for 'different', there hasn't really been that much to inform as such, it's more 'potentially' of an unknown...all theory really...with Brexit, yeah we have been outside the EU before../not always a part of but we can't discount the years we have been in it so it's still a complete unknown at the present so, so much less to inform really of our future etc...and the same with Trump, he's not a politician in the sense that the world has ever known, so in his role/his history that would be appropriate etc../very little to inform...I think for me a big part with both is what the effect and the positive effect for those very people who would struggle to inform themselves because of the general struggle of their lives...and also before any paths can go forward, things that appear to have been more brought to the surface do need validation and addressing I think...Trump really as a lot of work and actions to do now with so many of his prejudiced and yes, racist comments because once something is out there, it can't be taken back but can 'cause' so much damage, it became out of his control in what was incited in others..(some others obviously, whose own thoughts and feelings felt 'fed' by this powerful figure..)...Trump contributed../Trump is president elect/Trump has to address and take his responsibility...no matter what percentage it is because he has promoted intolerance and that can't be acceptable no matter what the political beliefs...it's okay to be seen with the 'important' people of the world as he sees them but the important people really are much closer to home and right under his nose and the ones he should be focusing on really...

[arista]

"Trump is president elect."

Yes Teacher Ammi
and he had the Leader of Japan
in his Real Gold Trump Tower,yesterday,
a first.

But clever of Japan to do a private Deal
before he is in office.


Yes Ammi
DEAL

Teach your Blighters
DEALS

That Japan Leader said it was Positive


Life In The City.

[Kizzy]

Monkey see monkey do.... Won't be long before he stuffs up :idc:

[kirklancaster]

Evasive? not even slightly. Your post that I quoted was obviously referring to the point I made about the uninformed masses then you tried to make out that I called you uninformed even though I didn't because you were looking for a reason to be offended.

It is one thing for one to 'rewrite History' when all records of that history has been 'removed' so no verification of that rewritten history is possible Dezzy, but wholly another to attempt to do so when the history being 'rewritten' is still THERE - recorded for posterity and for all to refer to for verification purposes.

AND the TRUTH of this issue is STILL on this thread and PROVES, that I did NOT refer to you or any post of yours in the "post which you quoted" or ANY other of my posts.

Your statement is a DOWNRIGHT FALSEHOOD.

I quoted Kizzy's post and ONLY Kizzy's post as can CLEARLY be evidenced by referring to post number 126, but duplicated below, anyway:

....................DUPLICATION................... ...................

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Kizzy View Post
....No. joe public does not have a clue what is about to theoretically knee him in the nads concerning brexit."

And MY comments:

"I am a member of 'Joe Public'and so are DOZENS of my friends and associates as are dozens more of people who I could best term 'acquaintances', and we ALL voted for Brexit.

Among these people are four Company Directors, two Doctors, two Solicitors, several Nurses, three Policemen, several Teachers, and several SME business owners, as well as dozens of 'Blue Collar Workers, several unemployed and quite a few 'Ducker And Divers'.

The one other thing which we all have in common - apart from our Brexit vote - is that ALL of us understand the real issues concerning the EU and our membership of it.

So while you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, you will forgive me if I elect not to pay heed to it, and this is based upon the fact - that in my opinion, which I am as EQUALLY entitled to - it is ALL YOUR posts which are so ill informed and erroneous as to the true facts concerning current affairs, including politics and the EU, that they attest to YOU having the woeful LACK of any REAL understanding of the issues often debated on here, NOT 'Joe Public'."
..........................END OF DUPLICATION....................................

So you see Dezzy, I responded to Kizzy's post NOT any post of yours, and HERE is your LATER RESPONSE to the above post of mine TO KIZZY, which you quoted but which up until then had NOTHING to do with you. YOU invited yourself into the discussion by quoting me and commenting on my post:

............................DUPLICATION........... ................................
"Quote:
Originally Posted by kirklancaster View Post
I am a member of 'Joe Public'and so are DOZENS of my friends and associates as are dozens more of people who I could best term 'acquaintances', and we ALL voted for Brexit.

Among these people are four Company Directors, two Doctors, two Solicitors, several Nurses, three Policemen, several Teachers, and several SME business owners, as well as dozens of 'Blue Collar Workers, several unemployed and quite a few 'Ducker And Divers'.

The one other thing which we all have in common - apart from our Brexit vote - is that ALL of us understand the real issues concerning the EU and our membership of it.

So while you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, you will forgive me if I elect not to pay heed to it, and this is based upon the fact - that in my opinion, which I am as EQUALLY entitled to - it is ALL YOUR posts which are so ill informed and erroneous as to the true facts concerning current affairs, including politics and the EU, that they attest to YOU having the woeful LACK of any REAL understanding of the issues often debated on here, NOT 'Joe Public'."

And YOUR COMMENTS:

"And none of this has any effect on the majority of people on both sides who likely voted what they voted for based on soundbites and sensationalism rather than solid facts."
..........................................END OF DUPLICATION.............................

I THEN and only then, quoted you and responded to you:

......................................DUPLICATION. .................................
".Quote:
Originally Posted by Dezzy View Post
And none of this has any effect on the majority of people on both sides who likely voted what they voted for based on soundbites and sensationalism rather than solid facts."

My response:

"No, but I do not care about any 'majority of people on both sides' only about myself when I am being erroneously labelled and demeaned by being 'tarred with that famous 'same brush' which some use to make sweeping and mocking generalisations about 'Joe Public' - which are both arrogantly presumptive and erroneous anyway."

............................END OF DUPLICATION......................................

Now WHERE in the above exchanges are you justified in claiming that I was obviously referring to ANY points YOU made about the uninformed masses?

You are doing an excellent job of confusing the truth, but that truth is:

1) that I quoted and responded to Kizzy, and not you.
2) that it was you who then quoted me and commented and NOT as you claim.
3) Even when I DID respond to your response tome, I quoted you and made no mention of 'uninformed masses'

I we are going to debate - and I love debating with you Dezzy - at least let's do it honestly, and that means not attempting to deflect and evade by rewriting history.

The truth is there from post number 126 onwards.

[joeysteele]

..I think that we're (voters that is..)..are all informed as much as we feel we need to be informed or can be because it's so often the case as well that people effected most with any government in many countries etc are those whose lives are quite a struggle anyway.../struggling with low incomes../with cost of living rises and worrying how they'll manage../with families and needs that have to be met etc...these are always the people to worry about most I think so obviously would want to feel confidently 'informed' in their voting decisions and what things would mean to them but then that's conflicted though with the time that many have available to inform themselves, so a bit of a catch really...working/looking after families/working out how to make it all work and add up etc...so yeah, information to inform is always available but not always able to be sought.../I think it can also work the other way though as well and being 'too informed' and equally as confusing in making decisions because it's such an overload and over-thinking and over-thinking and etc...anyway, democracy never required informed, it just requited a vote so even the smallest of reasons for a vote of whatever has to be equally valid...

...anyways with both Brexit and Trump, I think the similarity has been that because they're both essentially votes for 'different', there hasn't really been that much to inform as such, it's more 'potentially' of an unknown...all theory really...with Brexit, yeah we have been outside the EU before../not always a part of but we can't discount the years we have been in it so it's still a complete unknown at the present so, so much less to inform really of our future etc...and the same with Trump, he's not a politician in the sense that the world has ever known, so in his role/his history that would be appropriate etc../very little to inform...I think for me a big part with both is what the effect and the positive effect for those very people who would struggle to inform themselves because of the general struggle of their lives...and also before any paths can go forward, things that appear to have been more brought to the surface do need validation and addressing I think...Trump really as a lot of work and actions to do now with so many of his prejudiced and yes, racist comments because once something is out there, it can't be taken back but can 'cause' so much damage, it became out of his control in what was incited in others..(some others obviously, whose own thoughts and feelings felt 'fed' by this powerful figure..)...Trump contributed../Trump is president elect/Trump has to address and take his responsibility...no matter what percentage it is because he has promoted intolerance and that can't be acceptable no matter what the political beliefs...it's okay to be seen with the 'important' people of the world as he sees them but the important people really are much closer to home and right under his nose and the ones he should be focusing on really...

This for me.
Valid points all through and especially as to the hard work Trump needs to do too, which he has after the discord he has brought about from his campaign.
As you rightly point out of a racist nature too at times, by his own choice.

I said plenty here yesterday on this and other included issues so will leave it there.
Just had to commend this post.

[arista]

"and we ALL voted for Brexit. "


Yes Kirk
I did and many of my Team
Not my PA though
I can not control her all the way to a Vote.
I sure a Robot PA will be Far better

[kirklancaster]

"and we ALL voted for Brexit. "


Yes Kirk
I did and many of my Team
Not my PA though
I can not control her all the way to a Vote.
I sure a Robot PA will be Far better

:laugh: Sack her Arista - A Robot PA will be yours to command. :hee:

[arista]

:laugh: Sack her Arista - A Robot PA will be yours to command. :hee:


No she has got me out of a tangle,
so I respect her.
Loyal as well.

[Tom4784]

It is one thing for one to 'rewrite History' when all records of that history has been 'removed' so no verification of that rewritten history is possible Dezzy, but wholly another to attempt to do so when the history being 'rewritten' is still THERE - recorded for posterity and for all to refer to for verification purposes.

AND the TRUTH of this issue is STILL on this thread and PROVES, that I did NOT refer to you or any post of yours in the "post which you quoted" or ANY other of my posts.

Your statement is a DOWNRIGHT FALSEHOOD.

I quoted Kizzy's post and ONLY Kizzy's post as can CLEARLY be evidenced by referring to post number 126, but duplicated below, anyway:

....................DUPLICATION................... ...................

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Kizzy View Post
....No. joe public does not have a clue what is about to theoretically knee him in the nads concerning brexit."

And MY comments:

"I am a member of 'Joe Public'and so are DOZENS of my friends and associates as are dozens more of people who I could best term 'acquaintances', and we ALL voted for Brexit.

Among these people are four Company Directors, two Doctors, two Solicitors, several Nurses, three Policemen, several Teachers, and several SME business owners, as well as dozens of 'Blue Collar Workers, several unemployed and quite a few 'Ducker And Divers'.

The one other thing which we all have in common - apart from our Brexit vote - is that ALL of us understand the real issues concerning the EU and our membership of it.

So while you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, you will forgive me if I elect not to pay heed to it, and this is based upon the fact - that in my opinion, which I am as EQUALLY entitled to - it is ALL YOUR posts which are so ill informed and erroneous as to the true facts concerning current affairs, including politics and the EU, that they attest to YOU having the woeful LACK of any REAL understanding of the issues often debated on here, NOT 'Joe Public'."
..........................END OF DUPLICATION....................................

So you see Dezzy, I responded to Kizzy's post NOT any post of yours, and HERE is your LATER RESPONSE to the above post of mine TO KIZZY, which you quoted but which up until then had NOTHING to do with you. YOU invited yourself into the discussion by quoting me and commenting on my post:

............................DUPLICATION........... ................................
"Quote:
Originally Posted by kirklancaster View Post
I am a member of 'Joe Public'and so are DOZENS of my friends and associates as are dozens more of people who I could best term 'acquaintances', and we ALL voted for Brexit.

Among these people are four Company Directors, two Doctors, two Solicitors, several Nurses, three Policemen, several Teachers, and several SME business owners, as well as dozens of 'Blue Collar Workers, several unemployed and quite a few 'Ducker And Divers'.

The one other thing which we all have in common - apart from our Brexit vote - is that ALL of us understand the real issues concerning the EU and our membership of it.

So while you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, you will forgive me if I elect not to pay heed to it, and this is based upon the fact - that in my opinion, which I am as EQUALLY entitled to - it is ALL YOUR posts which are so ill informed and erroneous as to the true facts concerning current affairs, including politics and the EU, that they attest to YOU having the woeful LACK of any REAL understanding of the issues often debated on here, NOT 'Joe Public'."

And YOUR COMMENTS:

"And none of this has any effect on the majority of people on both sides who likely voted what they voted for based on soundbites and sensationalism rather than solid facts."
..........................................END OF DUPLICATION.............................

I THEN and only then, quoted you and responded to you:

......................................DUPLICATION. .................................
".Quote:
Originally Posted by Dezzy View Post
And none of this has any effect on the majority of people on both sides who likely voted what they voted for based on soundbites and sensationalism rather than solid facts."

My response:

"No, but I do not care about any 'majority of people on both sides' only about myself when I am being erroneously labelled and demeaned by being 'tarred with that famous 'same brush' which some use to make sweeping and mocking generalisations about 'Joe Public' - which are both arrogantly presumptive and erroneous anyway."

............................END OF DUPLICATION......................................

Now WHERE in the above exchanges are you justified in claiming that I was obviously referring to ANY points YOU made about the uninformed masses?

You are doing an excellent job of confusing the truth, but that truth is:

1) that I quoted and responded to Kizzy, and not you.
2) that it was you who then quoted me and commented and NOT as you claim.
3) Even when I DID respond to your response tome, I quoted you and made no mention of 'uninformed masses'

I we are going to debate - and I love debating with you Dezzy - at least let's do it honestly, and that means not attempting to deflect and evade by rewriting history.

The truth is there from post number 126 onwards.

Is it really worth writing Essays on what essentially is 'he said, she said?'

If you have a point to make about me saying that most voters are informed then make it.

[the truth]

Is it really worth writing Essays on what essentially is 'he said, she said?'

If you have a point to make about me saying that most voters are informed then make it.

yes there is a point and its wrong to devalue a brilliant post

[kirklancaster]

yes there is a point and its wrong to devalue a brilliant post

Thank you The Truth.

[Maru]

..I think that we're (voters that is..)..are all informed as much as we feel we need to be informed or can be because it's so often the case as well that people effected most with any government in many countries etc are those whose lives are quite a struggle anyway.../struggling with low incomes../with cost of living rises and worrying how they'll manage../with families and needs that have to be met etc...these are always the people to worry about most I think so obviously would want to feel confidently 'informed' in their voting decisions and what things would mean to them but then that's conflicted though with the time that many have available to inform themselves, so a bit of a catch really...working/looking after families/working out how to make it all work and add up etc...so yeah, information to inform is always available but not always able to be sought.../I think it can also work the other way though as well and being 'too informed' and equally as confusing in making decisions because it's such an overload and over-thinking and over-thinking and etc...anyway, democracy never required informed, it just requited a vote so even the smallest of reasons for a vote of whatever has to be equally valid...

...anyways with both Brexit and Trump, I think the similarity has been that because they're both essentially votes for 'different', there hasn't really been that much to inform as such, it's more 'potentially' of an unknown...all theory really...with Brexit, yeah we have been outside the EU before../not always a part of but we can't discount the years we have been in it so it's still a complete unknown at the present so, so much less to inform really of our future etc...and the same with Trump, he's not a politician in the sense that the world has ever known, so in his role/his history that would be appropriate etc../very little to inform...I think for me a big part with both is what the effect and the positive effect for those very people who would struggle to inform themselves because of the general struggle of their lives...and also before any paths can go forward, things that appear to have been more brought to the surface do need validation and addressing I think...Trump really as a lot of work and actions to do now with so many of his prejudiced and yes, racist comments because once something is out there, it can't be taken back but can 'cause' so much damage, it became out of his control in what was incited in others..(some others obviously, whose own thoughts and feelings felt 'fed' by this powerful figure..)...Trump contributed../Trump is president elect/Trump has to address and take his responsibility...no matter what percentage it is because he has promoted intolerance and that can't be acceptable no matter what the political beliefs...it's okay to be seen with the 'important' people of the world as he sees them but the important people really are much closer to home and right under his nose and the ones he should be focusing on really...

This post :clap1:

People vote for different reasons I think, but I feel yours is a common reasoning. This past election I voted Libertarian for my Congressional representatives because I am done with the oppression that is coming from both of the major parties as a citizen. I feel put in the middle and I am not really interested in their party favors. Been there, bought the t-shirt, have been on the rides. :laugh: Ironically enough, many of the reps I'd voted for previously (dem/rep) over the years have moved on or retired since I've returned to TX... so... even harder for me to justify a vote in their directions when both these parties have become overly divisive and overbearing in terms of the direction this country goes... so the noobs are taking most of the flack for it now, when realistically it's probably taken quite a bit of work on many people's parts for our govt to become this constipated. Ironic but still true now as I think about it.

[Kizzy]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Kizzy View Post
....No. joe public does not have a clue what is about to theoretically knee him in the nads concerning brexit."

And MY comments:

"I am a member of 'Joe Public'and so are DOZENS of my friends and associates as are dozens more of people who I could best term 'acquaintances', and we ALL voted for Brexit.

You may have voted for brexit... that is irrelevant, my point related to the fact you your friends, acquaintances or indeed the rest of the UK have no clue what the impact of brexit will be.

ALL YOUR posts which are so ill informed and erroneous as to the true facts concerning current affairs, including politics and the EU, that they attest to YOU having the woeful LACK of any REAL understanding of the issues often debated on here

:joker: Well I'm sorry you feel that way Kirk, feel free to disregard my posts as replying to them would be a waste of your time.

However 'informed' you profess to be, with no information forthcoming from the govt regarding brexit it's confusing as to how you remain so knowledgeable on this issue.
Perhaps you have a crystal ball?

[arista]

"People vote for different reasons I think,"

Sure Maru

Welcome to Democracy

[Maru]

Get Cockwomble Juice Now! Naturally Sourced 100% natural formula and man-inerals


http://i.imgur.com/swyzqcu.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FA6VPcC.png

But does it have iodine?

Also will it attract sweet sexy Trump supporting women... or just other Trump men? :think:...

[Kizzy]

Aw..... Trump supporters can't get it up, figures :laugh:

[arista]

Get Cockwomble Juice Now! Naturally Sourced 100% natural formula and man-inerals


http://i.imgur.com/swyzqcu.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FA6VPcC.png

But does it have iodine?

Also will it attract sweet sexy Trump supporting women... or just other Trump men? :think:...

He is clever
CNN HD used a clip of his Video
on Worldwide TV broadcast
last night

[Brillopad]

You're asking me to explain the blatantly obvious.

Go ask most people who voted in the last election and ask them if they know who their local MP is and what their stances are on various issues. I'm telling you now that most people won't know or care. That's being uninformed.

Brexit was pretty much decided on the issue of immigration despite the fact that neither possibility would have changed immigration for better or worse thus the people who voted Remain or Leave based on that are uninformed.

People voted for Trump because he represented a mindset that appealed to them or they opposed Hillary or the soundbites of building walls to keep rapists and muslims out appealed to them. I imagine very few people voted for him based on his policies, most of which benefit the 1% and is predicted to be disastrous for the middle and working classes of America. People voted for him because of who he is, not what he'd bring to the table. That's being uninformed.

I'm not uninformed as are most people here because we all take time to look into the issues we discuss. It's rather naive to believe that everyone puts in the same effort as we do.

I noticed you didn't brign anything to the discussion with that post aside from an attempt to get a personal dig in though. You should consider trying to add something of value to discussions in the future.

Call it 'coming to the point', isn't that what you asked another poster to do, a poster who you accused of 'writing an essay' in his very detailed and well informed response to a post of yours.

Which is it to be - to the point or adding to the debate with detailed posts - you can't have it both ways. Maybe too detailed is too challenging , so maybe I should be brief and to the point.

[Kizzy]

Kirk did state 'in my opinion' before stating that the posters views on this subject on here are 'Ill informed' and 'erroneous'.A perfectly valid opinion to hold.
And he was not saying that he has some kind of 'monopoly' on knowing people of different professions.
He is replying to a very bold statement that is attempting to imply that people who voted to leave the EU are somehow 'ill informed' and are about to get some kind of big 'kick in the nads' that somehow Mystic Kizzy knows about and all of us uninformed dummies who voted to leave are totally ignorant to.
He is offering a rebuttal to this by giving examples of people from all different walks of life and all members of 'Joe public'(as all of us are) who made an informed decision when they cast their vote.

Well just to clarify... I mentioned Joe Public,which is every last one of us is it not?
Not just those who wanted brexit EVERYONE.

We were then and continue to be by definition ill informed, as there was only misinformation prior to the referendum and NO subsequent information to be had in relation to brexit..... Remember? 'Brexit means brexit', that in my opinion does not quantify as information which serves any purpose it is simply a nonsense statement.

I'm not mystic.... That is just how it is I'm afraid, sorry if anyone' bubble was burst. My statement however bold was perfectly valid.

[Kizzy]

Call it 'coming to the point', isn't that what you asked another poster to do, a poster who you accused of 'writing an essay' in his very detailed and well informed response to a post of yours.

Which is it to be - to the point or adding to the debate with detailed posts - you can't have it both ways. Maybe too detailed is too challenging , so maybe I should be brief and to the point.

To be fair on the last page Kirk stated to Joey that his posts were baffling and time consuming.... Maybe Joeys posts are just too detailed and challenging for him?
Considering the post you refer to was in the main an off topic reference to myself, then to question the validity of it is perfectly acceptable.

[empire]

lets point this out, but the liberal left have been hijacked by privately educated champagne socialists who have been eating out of a gold spoon and fork for most of their lives, and don't get me started on socialism, because that would kill a great country like the united states, look what it has done to europe, greece,spain,france,sweden, these good countries have been destroyed by it, the EU is a socialist utopia that is fast sinking into the sea, and the liberal left and the socialists of today hate freedom and fair elections, the democrats brown nosed the voters who they where going to sell their jobs to china and mexico, and lets see the truth but how could the democrats win the blue collar voters when they where going to sell their jobs abroad, and when they helped obama into the white house, all he done was say screw them, its all crap to say that people who voted for trump are sexist,racist,homophobic and very uneducated, those words where the rhetoric that they kept on shouting at voters, and the more they did it, the more they push those voters into the arms of trump, and why nationalism in europe is rising so fast is that the left wing idiots think that using the same rhetoric like they did in america will win them votes,

[kirklancaster]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Kizzy View Post
....No. joe public does not have a clue what is about to theoretically knee him in the nads concerning brexit."

And MY comments:

"I am a member of 'Joe Public'and so are DOZENS of my friends and associates as are dozens more of people who I could best term 'acquaintances', and we ALL voted for Brexit.

You may have voted for brexit... that is irrelevant, my point related to the fact you your friends, acquaintances or indeed the rest of the UK have no clue what the impact of brexit will be.

ALL YOUR posts which are so ill informed and erroneous as to the true facts concerning current affairs, including politics and the EU, that they attest to YOU having the woeful LACK of any REAL understanding of the issues often debated on here

:joker: Well I'm sorry you feel that way Kirk, feel free to disregard my posts as replying to them would be a waste of your time.

However 'informed' you profess to be, with no information forthcoming from the govt regarding brexit it's confusing as to how you remain so knowledgeable on this issue.
Perhaps you have a crystal ball?

If you are on the ground floor of a 100 storey 'skyscraper which is collapsing all around you, and one of those inside with you is the actual builder, and he confesses that the entire building is unsafe because it was built of substandard materials and jerry-built, you do not stop to debate what the future may hold OUTSIDE of that building - you get the flock out of there, BEFORE all those 99 other storeys come a crashing down all over you.

I did not NEED to KNOW the precise minutiae of any Brexit - and No one COULD know anyway, because no one knows the future, only God, and as Burns said: “The best laid schemes o' mice an' men, gang aft a-gley", so even the best and most expert of plans are no guarantor of successful execution.

I do not need to know the precise minutiae of Brexit, because there was and is, a vast wealth of clear, hard, irrefutable evidence which indicts the EU of being corrupt, wasteful, sinister, and hugely damaging for this country and its citizens - especially the lower working classes and the poor.

I posted a lot of this evidence in long, detailed, comprehensive posts on many pages throughout the 'EU Referendum ,In or OUT' thread which I started back in February, but if you elected to ignore that evidence because it did not dovetail into your own ideologies, that is your problem, and it neither impairs the quality or reduces the Truth of that evidence, nor does it invalidate my reasons for supporting Brexit.

In addition to all the charts and graphs and genuine statistics,there is then of course, over 4 decades of my own direct personal experience - as a young employed worker, a self-employed worker, a Company Director and employer, and a TAX payer - of witnessing how terrible the EU is for Britain, and how all those hundreds of billions of pounds of tax payers money which we pour into it, gives extremely negative Returns On Investment.

So you see, this Joe Public - and a wide circle of his friends and associates - UNDERSTANDS fully what the EU is, and just how wholly damaging membership of it has been for the UK and the majority of its citizens, and just WHY we are better off leaving that corrupt about-to-implode scamfest.

You believe what you want to.

[kirklancaster]

To be fair on the last page Kirk stated to Joey that his posts were baffling and time consuming.... Maybe Joeys posts are just too detailed and challenging for him?
Considering the post you refer to was in the main an off topic reference to myself, then to question the validity of it is perfectly acceptable.

I am not you. No post is too detailed or challenging for me.

[Kizzy]

If you are on the ground floor of a 100 storey 'skyscraper which is collapsing all around you, and one of those inside with you is the actual builder, and he confesses that the entire building is unsafe because it was built of substandard materials and jerry-built, you do not stop to debate what the future may hold OUTSIDE of that building - you get the flock out of there, BEFORE all those 99 other storeys come a crashing down all over you.

I did not NEED to KNOW the precise minutiae of any Brexit - and No one COULD know anyway, because no one knows the future, only God, and as Burns said: “The best laid schemes o' mice an' men, gang aft a-gley", so even the best and most expert of plans are no guarantor of successful execution.

I do not need to know the precise minutiae of Brexit, because there was and is, a vast wealth of clear, hard, irrefutable evidence which indicts the EU of being corrupt, wasteful, sinister, and hugely damaging for this country and its citizens - especially the lower working classes and the poor.

I posted a lot of this evidence in long, detailed, comprehensive posts on many pages throughout the 'EU Referendum ,In or OUT' thread which I started back in February, but if you elected to ignore that evidence because it did not dovetail into your own ideologies, that is your problem, and it neither impairs the quality or reduces the Truth of that evidence, nor does it invalidate my reasons for supporting Brexit.

In addition to all the charts and graphs and genuine statistics,there is then of course, over 4 decades of my own direct personal experience - as a young employed worker, a self-employed worker, a Company Director and employer, and a TAX payer - of witnessing how terrible the EU is for Britain, and how all those hundreds of billions of pounds of tax payers money which we pour into it, gives extremely negative Returns On Investment.

So you see, this Joe Public - and a wide circle of his friends and associates - UNDERSTANDS fully what the EU is, and just how wholly damaging membership of it has been for the UK and the majority of its citizens, and just WHY we are better off leaving that corrupt about-to-implode scamfest.

You believe what you want to.

I posted information from the governments own website which clearly stated we got more out of the EU than we paid in.
You again have misunderstood my previous post, I stated the Joe Public will feel brexit is a huge kick in the nads, it doesn't in any way suggest anything relating to who knew what prior to the referendum does it?

[Kizzy]

I am not you. No post is too detailed or challenging for me.

There's no need to be rude.

[joeysteele]

Well just to clarify... I mentioned Joe Public,which is every last one of us is it not?
Not just those who wanted brexit EVERYONE.

We were then and continue to be by definition ill informed, as there was only misinformation prior to the referendum and NO subsequent information to be had in relation to brexit..... Remember? 'Brexit means brexit', that in my opinion does not quantify as information which serves any purpose it is simply a nonsense statement.

I'm not mystic.... That is just how it is I'm afraid, sorry if anyone' bubble was burst. My statement however bold was perfectly valid.

Exactly.

I still do not get how this thread, related to Hillary Clinton supporters and the USA election has been taken down a different road and into yet another EU leaving thread.

However, you keep making your points, I do not consider any points made by anyone wrong from their own perspectives, which is really all what anyone's opinions are.
I most certainly do not consider yours ill informed in any way either, so you hold on to your views and don't take any notice of possibly any trying to possibly then trying to claim any high ground over you.
Where and how you have come to stand on issues is as important as anyone else.

On and off here, all people have their truths as they see them and others have differing ones, from whatever and how they are looking at things too.

Adding more and more put downs and near insults just for differing views means an argument is likely to be lost by whoever chooses to do the put downs.
Anyway, good points in what I have put in bold of your post there as like you that is all I have heard, brexit means brexit, nothing else of real substance whatsoever.
That is hardly informing anyone and no one can even yet say at this time, just what the real and full picture of brexit is going to be, no one, no matter their own reasons why they voted for same.

[Kizzy]

Exactly.

I still do not get how this thread, related to Hillary Clinton supporters and the USA election has been taken down a different road and into yet another EU leaving thread.

However, you keep making your points, I do not consider any points made by anyone wrong from their own perspectives, which is really all what anyone's opinions are.
I most certainly do not consider yours ill informed in any way either, so you hold on to your views and don't take any notice of possibly any trying to possibly then trying to claim any high ground over you.
Where and how you have come to stand on issues is as important as anyone else.

On and off here, all people have their truths as they see them and others have differing ones, from whatever and how they are looking at things too.

Adding more and more put downs and near insults just for differing views means an argument is likely to be lost by whoever chooses to do the put downs.
Anyway, good points in what I have put in bold of your post there as like you that is all I have heard, brexit means brexit, nothing else of real substance whatsoever.
That is hardly informing anyone and no one can even yet say at this time, just what the real and full picture of brexit is going to be, no one, no matter their own reasons why they voted for same.

Thank you Joey, I have learned on here to simply state my truths and disregard anyone who attempts to stifle my voice in an attempt to dominate the conversation.
I really hope the part in bold makes my feelings crystal clear on this issue, I don't know how it got to brexit either :laugh: But it kind of fits due to the media driven hype surrounding both issue.

[kirklancaster]

Exactly.

I still do not get how this thread, related to Hillary Clinton supporters and the USA election has been taken down a different road and into yet another EU leaving thread.


It's ALL there in the thread Joey if read through chronologically, but:

THE FIRST DEVIATION FROM THE OP SUBJECT ONTO THE EU - POST 98 - BY DEZZY: "Don't forget those hateful remoaners and their sour grapes!"

THE SECOND DEVIATION FROM THE OP SUBJECT ONTO THE EU - POST 102 BY DEZZY: "Most voters are uninformed, they'll make their decisions based on the soundbites and the headlines. That goes for most people on both sides of any vote. Brexit had so much support because the Brexit campaign lied about £350 million being freed up by leaving EU and that leaving would curb immigration which it wouldn't. The actual pros and cons of any election rarely come into it which is likely why Trump won despite the fact that his policies are flawed. People bought into the soundbites rather than the reality."

THE THIRD DEVIATION FROM THE OP SUBJECT ONTO THE EU - A RESPONSE POST 105 BY BRILLOPAD TO DEZZY'S EU POST: "That is beyond patronising. I completely disagree that most voters are uninformed and gullible. People are generally well educated and interested in the politics of their own country because, despite your implications, they have enough sense to know how such policies can influence their lives.

Both sides lied, not least Cameron and Osborne with project fear. I have no doubt that because of Brexit we will retain a tighter control of our borders in the future, to ignore the voters would be political suicide for some and would have enormous negative consequences for the democratic voting system in this country.

You clearly seem to think you know better than most people in this country, but somehow I seriously doubt that."

THE FOURTH DEVIATION FROM THE OP SUBJECT ONTO THE EU - A RESPONSE POST 111 BY JAMES: "From what I can see most people get their opinions on subjects like the EU over a number of years. It's been talked about for ages. Probably nightly TV news is the main source. I doubt political campaigns make much difference actually.

I was looking back, and here is a poll from before the EU referendum campaign that had Leave in the lead - http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...&postcount=882 before any buses with £350 million slogans appeared.

I'm talking about UK politics here - don't know enough about US politics to say much about the reasons for that. Although for what I can see the campaign there was mostly about personality and character of the candidates, with actual policies hardly talked about.

THE FIFTH DEVIATION FROM THE OP SUBJECT ONTO THE EU - A RESPONSE POST 116 BY DEZZY TO JAMES: "It went back and forth for ages iirc and plus it doesn't really disprove what I'm saying about a lot of people not really being informed.

Brexit mostly became a vote on immigration by the end although leaving the EU would have little effect on our immigration policies. Most people likely voted Leave or Remain on that issue alone although neither option would have an affect on it. That's rather uninformed."

AND WHAT WAS THE STIMULUS WHICH BROUGHT ME TO RESPOND:

THE SIXTH DEVIATION FROM THE OP SUBJECT ONTO THE EU - A RESPONSE POST NUMBER 118 BY KIZZY TO BRILLOPAD:"....No. joe public does not have a clue what is about to theoretically knee him in the nads concerning brexit."

I hope that this now clarifies the mystery for you Joey.




-

[Brillopad]

To be fair on the last page Kirk stated to Joey that his posts were baffling and time consuming.... Maybe Joeys posts are just too detailed and challenging for him?
Considering the post you refer to was in the main an off topic reference to myself, then to question the validity of it is perfectly acceptable.

I think for some to constantly and arrogantly attempt to clearly punch above their weight doesn't do them any favours.

[kirklancaster]

I posted information from the governments own website which clearly stated we got more out of the EU than we paid in.
You again have misunderstood my previous post, I stated the Joe Public will feel brexit is a huge kick in the nads, it doesn't in any way suggest anything relating to who knew what prior to the referendum does it?

:joker::joker::joker: Oh Mother of mine.

You denigrate, decry, castigate, criticise, and denounce THIS Government at every opportunity and accuse it of being dishonest, disreputable and liars - UNTIL - they publish something which fits your erroneous viewpoints. :joker:

You 'posted information from the government's OWN website' - information concerning the fiscal benefit of remaining in the EU on the website of a Government who fought tooth and nail to con the Great British Public into voting 'Remain' because that result suited their own very lucrative vested financial interests?

Yeah - OK then.

And backtrack as you may now about your rather sneering and condescending 'Joe Public' post, but given the context and flow of the conversation preceding it, AND your well documented views, it is quite, quite, obvious just what you meant by your post, so I MISUNDERSTOOD NOTHING, and understood only too well, EVERYTHING.

Oh - AND THE FACT THAT THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS did not pay heed TO THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPAGANDA AND LIES, makes a total nonsense of any claim that 'Joe public' is dim-witted, thick, gullible, or ill informed or uninformed, I'd say.

Please Note, by the way that I am referring to your posts and not you personally - just as you are mine.

[Tom4784]

Call it 'coming to the point', isn't that what you asked another poster to do, a poster who you accused of 'writing an essay' in his very detailed and well informed response to a post of yours.

Which is it to be - to the point or adding to the debate with detailed posts - you can't have it both ways. Maybe too detailed is too challenging , so maybe I should be brief and to the point.

So you have nothing to add and can't counter what I've said and are trying to be evasive by getting personal, okay. I'll take it as a sign of you giving up.

[Kizzy]

:joker::joker::joker: Oh Mother of mine.

You denigrate, decry, castigate, criticise, and denounce THIS Government at every opportunity and accuse it of being dishonest, disreputable and liars - UNTIL - they publish something which fits your erroneous viewpoints. :joker:

You 'posted information from the government's OWN website' - information concerning the fiscal benefit of remaining in the EU on the website of a Government who fought tooth and nail to con the Great British Public into voting 'Remain' because that result suited their own very lucrative vested financial interests?

Yeah - OK then.

And backtrack as you may now about your rather sneering and condescending 'Joe Public' post, but given the context and flow of the conversation preceding it, AND your well documented views, it is quite, quite, obvious just what you meant by your post, so I MISUNDERSTOOD NOTHING, and understood only too well, EVERYTHING.

Oh - AND THE FACT THAT THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS did not pay heed TO THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPAGANDA AND LIES, makes a total nonsense of any claim that 'Joe public' is dim-witted, thick, gullible, or ill informed or uninformed, I'd say.

Please Note, by the way that I am referring to your posts and not you personally - just as you are mine.


I do rubbish this govt yes, their politics do not gel with me ideologically. However, if you choose not to trust the gov on something as simple as figures on a website, mocking them as propaganda and lies.... I would think it says more about you that you are prepared to suppose they are telling the truth then 100% regarding brexit and their promise it will not impact on us negatively?....