Coronavirus - the political argument

Sluffy wrote:Given a choice I would have had non of the four and would have wished a party wanting to save the planet and give equal opportunity to all to have won - but such utopia doesn't exist in reality.

The Green party?

I can't move on until I receive an apology for being called a horse.

Natasha Whittam wrote:I can't move on until I receive an apology for being called a horse.

You'll be even more pissed off when you find out you've been entered in the 1.15 at Sha Tin on Sunday.

Natasha Whittam wrote:I can't move on until I receive an apology for being called a horse.

Do you have teeth like shergar?

boltonbonce wrote:You'll be even more pissed off when you find out you've been entered in the 1.15 at Sha Tin on Sunday.

I'll fooking romp home. You bitch.

karlypants wrote:Do you have teeth like shergar?

Do you have a face like Eric's bellend?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Given a choice I would have had non of the four and would have wished a party wanting to save the planet and give equal opportunity to all to have won - but such utopia doesn't exist in reality.

The Green party?

Ultimately an 'idealist' party in the same way as the 'communist' party was in the sense that they might sound fair and reasonable if all human nature thought and behaved in the dame way but in the real world there's far, far too many who thinks about themselves first and foremost and acts accordingly (seems to me to be the norm in society even more than ever these days).

Look how Corbyn's favourite idealistic socialist country Venezuela has turned out when the ideoligy (and corruption) trumped realism.

If you can spare just 20 minutes this video probably explains better than I ever could why idealism and realism are two separate worlds apart irrespective of what ever politics you support -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000hzdb/our-world-venezuela-falling-backwards

Keep in mind if and when you do watch it that Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world and its people should be amongst the richest (per capita) in the world also - yet just look at how it all turned out.

Plenty of other reading too if you are interested.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-36319877
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-52204225?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cg41ylwvwgxt/venezuela&link_location=live-reporting-story
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-latin-america-52640757/coronavirus-venezuelans-struggling-with-fuel-shortage?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-52053799?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/51643640?

This government seems incapable of consistency. First on 10 May they publish a statement stating that no quarantine measures would apply to travellers coming from France. But today the prime minister's spokesman insisted there was no French exemption, and that the original statement referred to the need for cooperation to manage the common border between the two countries.

Clearly Boris just makes it up as he goes along.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52682411

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:I don't think we need to click the link to guess what it says.

It does have a very concise and accurate description of Boris: Incompetent, unprepared, selfish, lazy, amoral, and just not that bright.

Well if he's like that and still managed to become Prime Minister then I guess we get what we deserve.

(Just goes to show how unelectable most thought Labour was under Corbyn was then!

Same with Trump rather than Hillary too, I suppose).

Corbyn is a hypocritical buffoon but it was actually 92,153 Tories who made Boris Prime Minister in July 2019.

Whatever Hilary's faults I think we can all agree she would have been a better president than Trump.

Nah, not what I said.

The country went to the polls at the General Election in December, 2019 and the people spoke.

The people got what they wanted.

Doesn't matter that not everyone voted, or it wasn't proportional, or just a few votes in key seats made a difference, etc, etc, etc - they won under the system in place at the time for both/all parties - and Corbyn/Labour didn't.

Same in America - could have, would have, should have, counts for nothing - Hilary played to the same rules as Trump - and again the people spoke.

People therefore get what we deserve.

If we didn't deserve Boris and Trump then we should have done something about it so that they didn't win the elections.

Simple as that.

(and I don't mean bumping them off or such like).

I accept that that the UK voted for BJ, but not quite true in America Clinton received 2.86 million more individual votes than Trump, however the system they use in the States put the chump in the White House.

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:I don't think we need to click the link to guess what it says.

It does have a very concise and accurate description of Boris: Incompetent, unprepared, selfish, lazy, amoral, and just not that bright.

Well if he's like that and still managed to become Prime Minister then I guess we get what we deserve.

(Just goes to show how unelectable most thought Labour was under Corbyn was then!

Same with Trump rather than Hillary too, I suppose).

Corbyn is a hypocritical buffoon but it was actually 92,153 Tories who made Boris Prime Minister in July 2019.

Whatever Hilary's faults I think we can all agree she would have been a better president than Trump.

Nah, not what I said.

The country went to the polls at the General Election in December, 2019 and the people spoke.

The people got what they wanted.

Doesn't matter that not everyone voted, or it wasn't proportional, or just a few votes in key seats made a difference, etc, etc, etc - they won under the system in place at the time for both/all parties - and Corbyn/Labour didn't.

Same in America - could have, would have, should have, counts for nothing - Hilary played to the same rules as Trump - and again the people spoke.

People therefore get what we deserve.

If we didn't deserve Boris and Trump then we should have done something about it so that they didn't win the elections.

Simple as that.

(and I don't mean bumping them off or such like).

Actually it is what you said. You said "he's like that and still managed to become Prime Minister". He became Prime Minister in July 2019. He later went on to win a general election and remain Prime Minister. The dictionary definition of to become is to start to be per the Cambridge English Dictionary.

If you insist on being pedantic you should at least be consistent.

If you want me to be really pedantic then here you are - in order to become the PM he had to be an MP.  In order to be an MP he had to be voted in by his constituents at an election.  Even before that stage, in order to stand as a candidate for that election he had to be voted in by the Conservative members of that constituency.

So he's been democratically elected by a majority at all stages, just to be even there to become the PM in the first place.

So stick that in your pipe!

We all know what I was talking about - Boris was seen to be the lesser of two evils by the electorate at the GE and the same in America with Trump over Hilary.

Given a choice I would have had non of the four and would have wished a party wanting to save the planet and give equal opportunity to all to have won - but such utopia doesn't exist in reality.

Unfortunately.

(Probably why I'm non political and don't vote).

None of which alters the fact that you did say it! Just admit you didn't express yourself clearly and we can all move on.

Of course those are some of the words I wrote - they're there in black and white after all - but I set them in a context that your selective quoting has deliberately removed from it.

What I did say if you put it back into the context in which they were written was that Boris was only electable as PM to the people (rather than his party) because Corbyn was even less electable to them.

That's is why the first thing I replied to you when you decided to make something out of nothing was -

Sluffy wrote:
Nah, not what I said.

Have a nice day.

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:I don't think we need to click the link to guess what it says.

It does have a very concise and accurate description of Boris: Incompetent, unprepared, selfish, lazy, amoral, and just not that bright.

Well if he's like that and still managed to become Prime Minister then I guess we get what we deserve.

(Just goes to show how unelectable most thought Labour was under Corbyn was then!

Same with Trump rather than Hillary too, I suppose).

Corbyn is a hypocritical buffoon but it was actually 92,153 Tories who made Boris Prime Minister in July 2019.

Whatever Hilary's faults I think we can all agree she would have been a better president than Trump.

Nah, not what I said.

The country went to the polls at the General Election in December, 2019 and the people spoke.

The people got what they wanted.

Doesn't matter that not everyone voted, or it wasn't proportional, or just a few votes in key seats made a difference, etc, etc, etc - they won under the system in place at the time for both/all parties - and Corbyn/Labour didn't.

Same in America - could have, would have, should have, counts for nothing - Hilary played to the same rules as Trump - and again the people spoke.

People therefore get what we deserve.

If we didn't deserve Boris and Trump then we should have done something about it so that they didn't win the elections.

Simple as that.

(and I don't mean bumping them off or such like).

Actually it is what you said. You said "he's like that and still managed to become Prime Minister". He became Prime Minister in July 2019. He later went on to win a general election and remain Prime Minister. The dictionary definition of to become is to start to be per the Cambridge English Dictionary.

If you insist on being pedantic you should at least be consistent.

If you want me to be really pedantic then here you are - in order to become the PM he had to be an MP.  In order to be an MP he had to be voted in by his constituents at an election.  Even before that stage, in order to stand as a candidate for that election he had to be voted in by the Conservative members of that constituency.

So he's been democratically elected by a majority at all stages, just to be even there to become the PM in the first place.

So stick that in your pipe!

We all know what I was talking about - Boris was seen to be the lesser of two evils by the electorate at the GE and the same in America with Trump over Hilary.

Given a choice I would have had non of the four and would have wished a party wanting to save the planet and give equal opportunity to all to have won - but such utopia doesn't exist in reality.

Unfortunately.

(Probably why I'm non political and don't vote).

None of which alters the fact that you did say it! Just admit you didn't express yourself clearly and we can all move on.

Of course those are some of the words I wrote - they're there in black and white after all - but I set them in a context that your selective quoting has deliberately removed from it.

What I did say if you put it back into the context in which they were written was that Boris was only electable as PM to the people (rather than his party) because Corbyn was even less electable to them.

That's is why the first thing I replied to you when you decided to make something out of nothing was -

Sluffy wrote:
Nah, not what I said.

Have a nice day.

Is there any way we can conclude this without you insisting on having the last word?

HINT: don't reply to this post

wessy wrote:
I accept that that the UK voted for BJ, but not quite true in America Clinton received 2.86 million more individual votes than Trump, however the system they use in the States put the chump in the White House.

And that is exactly why I said this...

Sluffy wrote:Doesn't matter that not everyone voted, or it wasn't proportional, or just a few votes in key seats made a difference, etc, etc, etc - they won under the system in place at the time for both/all parties - and Corbyn/Labour didn't.

Same in America - could have, would have, should have, counts for nothing - Hilary played to the same rules as Trump - and again the people spoke.

The system was exactly the same for both of them - Hilary 'could' have won with less votes too - no one had an unfair advantage.

At the end of the day the people spoke and we ended up with Trump, Brexit and Boris whether we as individuals wanted them or not - they all had an equal chance and the electorate had a free choice to vote for whoever/whatever they wanted.

All fair contests (in terms of the systems and rules) but not the results some of us (including myself) would have wished for.

Green Party are neither communist or ideologically socialist. So not sure what you mean.

xmiles wrote:Is there any way we can conclude this without you insisting on having the last word?

HINT: don't reply to this post

Yes I know what you've wrote but why would I want the last word - I'm certain not like some I know on social media?

I said what I said, you picked me up on something, then for whatever reason you chose not to accept my clarification and dig a bigger hole for yourself.

I put you straight and wished you a good day.

Not me insisting on anything?

I accepted that they both won by the system in place, not in question, was just pointing out that whilst in the UK The Consevatives won on all counts.

In America that was not the case he won by the rules and i acknowleding she new the rules and must abide by them, However the statistics show that HC recieved more individual votes, a fact that had no impact on the result, but still a fact.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Green Party are neither communist or ideologically socialist. So not sure what you mean.

EH???

I'm not saying the Green Party is either???

What I am saying is that a number of political party's are/have been driven by idealism.

I'm saying the Green Part is ideologically driven also - it seeks a world perfect world where man and nature is in balance (nothing wrong in having such a dream - wouldn't most of us wish for something like that?).

What I am saying is that idealism and reality doesn't often fit well together and gave examples of communism ("From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs") and a socialist utopia sought in Venezuela ended up being unworkable and causing more harm than any good it ever achieved.

(I could have mention Nazism as well but thought it would be far too contentious with its Aryan ideology - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race ).

At the end of the day any ideology has to pragmatically fit within the world we chose to live in - and some will never accept that - no matter what harm it may well end up causing.

The road to hell and all that I guess.

But yes, if I did have to vote and had a choice of Trump, Boris, Hilary, Brexit, Corbyn or being 'green', I'd go for the last one - but only doing so because I know they wouldn't win anyway because people have far bigger agendas for everyone of the others.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

karlypants wrote:Do you have teeth like shergar?

Do you have a face like Eric's bellend?

wessy wrote:I accepted that they both won by the system in place, not in question, was just pointing out that whilst in the UK The Consevatives won on all counts.

In America that was not the case he won by the rules and i acknowleding she new the rules and must abide by them, However the statistics show that HC recieved more individual votes, a fact that had no impact on the result, but still a fact.

Them are the rules though.

It didn't stop Labour forming the government in February 1974 when they won less votes than the Conservatives nor visa versa in 1951 when the reverse was true.

Fwiw Trump winning with less votes than his rival was the fifth time that had happened in America - Al Gore being the unlucky loser last time -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote

Another sort of own goal by the government (although I do have some sympathy if the intention was really to deal with lorry drivers etc coming in from France (and presumably just dropping there loads in quarantine zones and going back without otherwise getting out of their cabs?)

Posted at 19:13

France not exempt from UK quarantine - PM's spokesman

The UK has denied that travellers from France will be exempted from its planned quarantine measures.
Under the plans - announced last weekend - people arriving in the UK from abroad will be obliged to isolate themselves for 14 days.
Initially, the two governments said the exemption would apply to any travellers between France and the UK, and any future steps would be taken in a concerted and reciprocal manner.
The policy attracted criticism from other governments and the EU. Some experts suggested it would be unworkable.
But today, Prime Minister Boris Johnson's spokesman said there was no French exemption, and that the original statement referred to co-operation to manage the common border.
It now appears that those exempted from the policy could include freight drivers - to allow the flow of goods to continue - and people working on Covid-19 research, but not ordinary travellers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-52671694

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:Is there any way we can conclude this without you insisting on having the last word?

HINT: don't reply to this post

Yes I know what you've wrote but why would I want the last word - I'm certain not like some I know on social media?

I said what I said, you picked me up on something, then for whatever reason you chose not to accept my clarification and dig a bigger hole for yourself.

I put you straight and wished you a good day.

Not me insisting on anything?

So there you go insisting on having the last word.