Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

**** Elections thread *****

Page 108 of 111 FirstFirst ... 85898106107108109110 ... LastLast
Results 8,026 to 8,100 of 8309
  1. #8026
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    You're like the kid at school who's telling other kids to stop wearing their baseball caps backwards because he invented that.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  2. #8027
    I was the kid who told those kids they look like a twat and they should wear it properly so the sun provides shade for your eyes, the purpose of the baseball cap.

    Occasionally someone would tell me it shades the back of their neck, but usually I got told to fuck off.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  3. #8028
    So Ong, are you looking forward to the British version of Captain Retard becoming PM and doing a no deal Brexit?
  4. #8029
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    There are two things certain in life:

    1. You can't stump the Trump.

    2. You can't barrage the Farage.
  5. #8030
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    So Ong, are you looking forward to the British version of Captain Retard becoming PM and doing a no deal Brexit?
    He will become PM but he will not deliver a no-deal Brexit - not necessarily because he doesn't want to - but simply because it's not possible to do with the current formation of government. The man himself has described the chances of leaving without a deal as "a million to one".

    On an unrelated note, sometimes I think about FTR and I wonder what the sort of optimum peak for a forum is in terms of it being an actual community. FTR is obviously a hugely toxic place now and has been for some years - how does that happen though? Do forums as a whole by definition become toxic after a given period, and if so what is the sweet spot and how do you maintain it?
    Last edited by dwarfman3; 06-28-2019 at 08:59 AM.
  6. #8031
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    You think FTR is toxic?
    Have you looked at the rest of the internet?
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  7. #8032
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    You think FTR is toxic?
    Have you looked at the rest of the internet?
    Case and point
  8. #8033
    Lol, FTR is hardly toxic, at least not this forum, and not since banana left.
  9. #8034
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Yang is complaining that his mic was being cut off. Anyone know if there's any truth to this?
  10. #8035
    I missed that post from poop. I'm no fan of Boris. I'd prefer him to Jeremy James Blunt though, but it's marginal.

    I'd like Nige to be PM. If not Nige, then Anne Widdecombe. Failing that, fuck knows. Probably Corbyn, which is a reflection of the sorry state of British politics.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  11. #8036
    FTR is obviously a hugely toxic place now
    I think you're mistaken. I can see why you think this from an observer's pov, but the truth is, we keep coming here because we enjoy arguing about politics.I don't like doing this with irl friends, because it causes friction. But with internet randoms? It's fucking great. I assume others feel the same, because if they don't, I'd have to question why they keep posting.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  12. #8037
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I think you're mistaken. I can see why you think this from an observer's pov, but the truth is, we keep coming here because we enjoy arguing about politics.I don't like doing this with irl friends, because it causes friction. But with internet randoms? It's fucking great. I assume others feel the same, because if they don't, I'd have to question why they keep posting.
    I don't like politics at all. I'd rather talk about playing games and making shit online.
  13. #8038
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    I don't like politics at all. I'd rather talk about playing games and making shit online.
    Fair enough. Games doesn't interest me, but making shit online? Maybe that does, idk. What you making online?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  14. #8039
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Fair enough. Games doesn't interest me, but making shit online? Maybe that does, idk. What you making online?
    Making libtards get triggered zing
  15. #8040
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by dwarfman3 View Post
    Case and point
    OMG you're literally Hitler.


    Seriously, though.
    I think we've got a pretty nice thing going, here, with intelligent people whom have very different backgrounds and perspectives talking freely about our opinions.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  16. #8041
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Making libtards get triggered zing
    Hi fucking five.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  17. #8042
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  18. #8043
    Jack Sawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,667
    Location
    Jack-high straight flush motherfucker
    A random discussion on a not-so-random corner of the internet

    - Bernie Sanders' Healthcare Plan cost is 16 Trillion over some amount of years. The host asks "How do we pay for it"?

    “How do we pay for it? How do we pay for it?”

    I wish people were asking this question when we rushed into Iraq and the Middle East nearly 20 years ago!
    Or just the massive increase in military budget in the last budget... some things they will never ask "how do you pay for it", only the stuff that actually benefit the people gets treated that way.
    The military budget is a fraction of what is spent on social services every year
    Look at it from a what is needed perspective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...2018_SIPRI.png

    The US has the biggest military budget in the world. As Big as the next 9 nations put together. Why is it so big, who is going to challenge them? Is it really needed? Why does it increase each year by Billions while other programs get cut? Could it be because there are people lobbying for the military-industrial complex? You think there really isn't money to fix Flint's water supply or do you, maybe, can agree that this sorts of things are not prioritized for other reasons?
    Yeah, you know how we could save money?

    Stop repairing roads, close public schools, disband the police & fire departments...

    How do we pay for all this?
    We spend 700 billion in military spending with some of that for the VA and benefits for those who serve their country (unlike the liberal losers who want the country to serve THEM a free education on taxpayers money) and M4A is projected to cost 40 trillion in the first 10 years or about 6 times as much for that program as the one keeping over 330 million people safe.
    Yeah, the Yemeni/Palestinian civilians we're helping Saudi Arabia/Israel kill are soooo threatening. Plus M4A also keeps over 330 million people safe.

    And by your logic, how is asking the military to serve ME any different than asking the healthcare or education system to serve ME? We should just have private militaries, right?
    Blame Congress for voting for the war, both parties did after that thing that happened (9/11) and you guys weren't complaining when Obama kept the war going for 8 years with drone strikes killing lots of "brown" people so spare me your faux outrage.

    92% of Americans have health insurance, why should we give the monopoly to the gov when Social Security is going bankrupt. You can regulate healthcare and drug prices/hospital procedures and encourage competition in health insurance and offer incentives for companies to hire workers full time and offer health insurance, you DON'T have the right to take it away from hundreds of millions of people to gamble it all on some old senile socialists idea of what healthcare should be.

    We have always had a military, it's for people like you who won't serve so we can protect ourselves and our allies. You got free education through high school, college has been in decline for the last 10 years, so why not rethink higher education like you rethink healthcare, because college is not worth the investment of $60,000 or more for a line on your resume and a gender studies degree.
    Fine, ignore the outrage. Just from a practical standpoint, our military is doing a lot of things that aren't making us safer. We should stop doing those things, and use the extra money to fund free public college.

    Bernie's health insurance plan is closer to what the rest of the developed world is doing than what we have now. The US healthcare system is the weird one.
    I thought climate change was the big scare that we need to spend all available money on, can't have hamburgers and plastic straws anymore right?

    Bernie can't even nail down the price of Medicare for all but insists we will all save money, I'm not in favor of the same government you claim is war hungry and wastes money not keeping us safe having a monopoly on health insurance. And if you want free college, just serve in the military, they do that in other countries to, or do you just want to pick and choose what you like from other countries to implement so you can have a taxpayer funded easy life?
    My dream... is to fly... over the rainbow... so high...


    Cogito ergo sum

    VHS is like a book? and a book is like a stack of kindles.
    Hey, I'm in a movie!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYdwe3ArFWA
  19. #8044
    RIP remain.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  20. #8045
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    RIP remain.
    What happen?
  21. #8046
    Farage happened. He won't challenge the Tories in the seats they currently hold so as to not split the leave vote. It's really bad news for remain. Really bad. You won't see either Labour or the Libs do the same, those two parties will split the remain vote, and Labour voters who voted to leave will either stay at home, spoil their ballot or vote Brexit Party.

    Labour's Brexit policy is political suicide.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  22. #8047
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You won't see either Labour or the Libs do the same,
    Except that they are...you're exactly right.
  23. #8048
    Huh? I've seen no reports suggesting that either Labour or Libs are not standing in certain seats to avoid splitting the remain vote. As best I'm aware, both parties are fielding a full team of candidates. If you know something I don't, please link me.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  24. #8049
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    It's worth me pointing out that while I was arguing against ong's position on this a few months ago, my position is slightly leaning in his favor these days.

    I still believe the public vote was a stunt. I still believe the politicians expected the result of the vote would be remain, as when it was not remain, there was no plan to make that happen.
    Further down the road, we see that not only was there no plan at the time, there was no political will to make it happen, as it's been years and saying any progress has been made requires some explaining.

    The politicians tried to pull a stunt, and it backfired. In so doing, they gave will to the people. If they do not allow that will to express itself, then ong's right, it's a miscarriage of democracy.


    For better or worse, it is every people's right to govern itself, and once the people speak, it is incumbent on their politicians to make that happen...
    IMO. Based on what I understand about the causes of revolutions, which is not my expertise.

    There's at least a couple of historical precedents where a leader offered a freedom as a lie, and that leader was later met with violence when the freedom was withheld. I'm not making any direct comparisons between Brexit and truly corrupt strongmen. I'm noting the human danger inherent in telling a large group of people that you have the ability to remove a negative, and you choose not to do so. Once the people know the negative can be removed, they are prone to taking it for themselves.

    The metaphor is ominous, IMO. Not that we should jump at shadows. Just be aware of the echos of past missteps.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  25. #8050
    Good post mojo. Whether you're right about it being a stunt and the lack of political will to carry it through, idk. But it has got to the point where it's a matter of democratic integrity, rather than a simple in/out debate, Rejecting the will of the people, after us being given a say, would be far more dangerous than leaving. This is why I find it alarming that so many remainers are so intent on overturning the decision. It's like they're oblivious to the danger such an outcome poses.

    We've made our decision. If it's a bad one, we have to live with it. Any other outcome is an even worse decision now.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  26. #8051
    Well basically the election is a referendum on Brexit. So if the people don't vote in a Tory majority or the Tories can't form a coalition, then the will of the people will have apparently changed. And I'd say the current will of the people takes precedence over the will of the people a few years ago.
  27. #8052
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    It's my understanding that politicians on both sides of the argument agreed to put it to a vote. If that's wrong, then correct me.
    The politicians who opposed Brexit thought it would never pass the vote, so they let the vote happen. Then when the vote went against their will, they have not changed their direction in accordance with the public choice.

    It's that misdirection that I find ominous.

    ***
    I still believe that the (shifting) majority can choose to vote again, though. I agree with your argument against setting the precedent, but I think we're not alone in that. I think that if the majority opinion has changed, then that's fine. It's each society's prerogative to change as it will. If it has changed, and there is popular outcry for another vote, then it's only democratic to hold another vote.

    Forcing another vote from the top down is not OK with me, but if it is called for from the people, then I think you have to admit that is, in fact, democracy in action.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  28. #8053
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Huh? I've seen no reports suggesting that either Labour or Libs are not standing in certain seats to avoid splitting the remain vote. As best I'm aware, both parties are fielding a full team of candidates. If you know something I don't, please link me.
    Here's the first one. More to come I assume.

    Also, it's not obvious that BP standing down will help the Tories in contested seats, since the Tories will become the de facto "Brexit Party", and most of those contested seats voted Remain.

    So maybe not time to count your chickens just yet.

    Edit: Sorry forgot the link
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50398820
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 11-13-2019 at 01:06 PM.
  29. #8054
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    The politicians who opposed Brexit thought it would never pass the vote, so they let the vote happen. Then when the vote went against their will, they have not changed their direction in accordance with the public choice.
    Individual politicans are meant to represent their constituencies. So if you're an MP from a Remain riding, voting against shitty (and they were shitty, even Ong can see that) Brexit deals is wholly appropriate imo. If there had been a good deal on offer then you might have a point.
  30. #8055
    The most compelling evidence of how shitty the negotiated deals on Brexit were was the fact that enough Tory MPs bailed on their own party to keep the deals from going through, and that this happened multiple times.

    As far as Brexit reflecting the will of the people, I think the referendum question, presented as a binary option, was ill-posed. I doubt people who voted Leave were uniformly in favour of a no-deal or shitty-deal Brexit over Remain, or for that matter had a solid understanding of what the consequences of these kinds of Brexit would be. They may have bought into the whole 'rah rah Britain' rhetoric at the time, but now they're finding out how damaging it will be to their pocketbooks they might be prepared to swallow their pride.
  31. #8056
    Geez, what do you know? The libruls can strategize too!

    Another feature of the Brexit battle at this election is the agreement made by the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and Green Party to stand aside for one another in 60 seats across England and Wales.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50349111
  32. #8057
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Well basically the election is a referendum on Brexit. So if the people don't vote in a Tory majority or the Tories can't form a coalition, then the will of the people will have apparently changed. And I'd say the current will of the people takes precedence over the will of the people a few years ago.
    It shouldn't be a "referendum" on Brexit. Elections are about much, much more than one single issue. This is one reason this should have been dealt with by now.

    And not everyone will view this as an EU vote, like you do. I certainly don't. Some "leave" voters might vote Labour due to our awful foreign policy. I can't vote Tory for this reason. So my vote isn't going to them. I won't vote Labour either. I don't have anyone to vote for, since BP won't be standing in my constituency. I'm either spoiling my ballot or not bothering at all.

    Here's the first one. More to come I assume.
    It'll certainly take more than one. Brexit party are not contending 317 seats.

    Also, it's not obvious that BP standing down will help the Tories in contested seats, since the Tories will become the de facto "Brexit Party", and most of those contested seats voted Remain.
    It certainly will help them. Whether it swings the balance I can't say, but it should. If these contended seats are remain seats, then it's even worse for remain, unless they organise and vote tactically. If 60% voted remain, and that is split evenly between Labour and Libs, they get 30% each and Tories get 40%. That's a massive simplification, and assumes everyone votes based on the EU, but you should see what I'm getting at. It would mean the Tories winning seats they might not otherwise have won.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  33. #8058
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It shouldn't be a "referendum" on Brexit. Elections are about much, much more than one single issue. This is one reason this should have been dealt with by now.
    The election was called almost entirely due to Brexit. So whether or not it 'should' be another referendum, it effectively is.
  34. #8059
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    I still believe that the (shifting) majority can choose to vote again, though
    Yeah, maybe, once we've left and some time has passed. How much "some time" is is another debate altogether, but it has to be reasonably significant.

    Herein lies a problem though. If we have another EU vote, then Scotland deserve another independence vote. And if they leave the UK (which they probably will), the appetite for the (rest of the) UK to leave the EU increases. Reaminers can't have it both ways. They can't get another referendum, and then if they win, refuse to let the Scots have another say to protect their result.

    Better to just leave and not have a democratic crisis in the first place.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  35. #8060
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    (and they were shitty, even Ong can see that)
    Yeah, the deals were unacceptable. We still would not be able to agree trade deals with third parties, so we would not be economically sovereign.

    I doubt people who voted Leave were uniformly in favour of a no-deal or shitty-deal Brexit over Remain, or for that matter had a solid understanding of what the consequences of these kinds of Brexit would be.
    Shitty deal, sure, but I think the vast majority of leave voters would agree that "no deal" is the default. I'm not afraid of a no deal.

    Whether the electorate had a "solid understanding" as you put it is irrelevant. Most remain voters don't think the EU is moving towards being a federal superstate, so that lack of understanding exists on both sides. What is relevant is we had the vote, and made a decision. That has to be upheld.

    The election was called almost entirely due to Brexit. So whether or not it 'should' be another referendum, it effectively is.
    I think you're forgetting that we currently have an unelected PM. This election would have needed to happen anyway, even if Brexit was done.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  36. #8061
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yeah, maybe, once we've left and some time has passed. How much "some time" is is another debate altogether, but it has to be reasonably significant.

    Herein lies a problem though. If we have another EU vote, then Scotland deserve another independence vote. And if they leave the UK (which they probably will), the appetite for the (rest of the) UK to leave the EU increases. Reaminers can't have it both ways. They can't get another referendum, and then if they win, refuse to let the Scots have another say to protect their result.
    What Remainer is saying we can change our minds on Brexit, but Scotland isn't allowed to change its mind?

    Scotland can have as many votes as it wants. And if we Leave, it will vote again and it will leave the UK, followed shortly by NI. If we stay in the EU, the chance of those places leaving goes way down (though they should still be free to leave if they want to).

    If your argument is that we shouldn't have another vote on Brexit because that opens the door to another referendum on Scottish independence, I got news for you. That door is already open, and leaving the EU will kick it right off its hinges.
  37. #8062
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Most remain voters don't think the EU is moving towards being a federal superstate
    Proud to count myself as one of these.
  38. #8063
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Individual politicans are meant to represent their constituencies. So if you're an MP from a Remain riding, voting against shitty (and they were shitty, even Ong can see that) Brexit deals is wholly appropriate imo. If there had been a good deal on offer then you might have a point.
    Sitting on their hands and waiting for their opposition to produce a plan they agree with is just a white mutiny in action.

    If they're not actively trying to meet the will of the people with a plan of their own, trying to compromise with everyone at the table... they're not effectively representing their constituency. They're defaulting their voice in the compromise. They are not serving their constituents by not trying to actively find the best Brexit deal for their constituents, whether or not those constituents voted with the national majority.


    I mean... I'm not sure if this is pure naivety talking, here.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  39. #8064
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Sitting on their hands and waiting for their opposition to produce a plan they agree with is just a white mutiny in action.

    If they're not actively trying to meet the will of the people with a plan of their own, trying to compromise with everyone at the table... they're not effectively representing their constituency. They're defaulting their voice in the compromise. They are not serving their constituents by not trying to actively find the best Brexit deal for their constituents, whether or not those constituents voted with the national majority.
    Well no, it's not their job to come up with a plan that their consituencies didn't ask for. It's the job of the government. And those plans were shit, and they were rightly rejected. That's like saying Ds should come up with a plan to build the Wall.

    I mean, they shouldn't blindly obstruct any reasonable plan but they should be free to point out when the suggested plan is shitty. And again, the plans offered were shitty enough that enough of the ruling party's members voted against them that they wouldn't pass. So I don't think you can accuse the opposition parties of being uncooperative here. They just weren't given anything reasonable they could vote for.
  40. #8065
    What Remainer is saying we can change our minds on Brexit, but Scotland isn't allowed to change its mind?
    None that I'm aware of, but if we have another referendum, vote to remain, and then Scotland leaves the UK, what happens next? Remainers will see the problem here, and I expect noise.

    Scotland can have as many votes as it wants. And if we Leave, it will vote again and it will leave the UK, followed shortly by NI.
    Agreed. I think this is the best outcome.

    If we stay in the EU, the chance of those places leaving goes way down (though they should still be free to leave if they want to).
    Scotland will probably leave anyway. It's not just about the EU to them.

    If your argument is that we shouldn't have another vote on Brexit because that opens the door to another referendum on Scottish independence, I got news for you. That door is already open, and leaving the EU will kick it right off its hinges.
    It's not my argument. I am more than happy for Scotland to exercise their democratic rights.

    Proud to count myself as one of these.
    I think this is the main difference between remain and leave voters, to be frank.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  41. #8066
    Regarding the "federal superstate" status of the EU...

    At present, while the European Union (EU) is not officially a federation, various academic observers regard it as having the characteristics of a federal system.[3]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Europe

    The EU has certainly increased its power over the years. You can't deny that, it is a completely different beast to what the EC was. If you think they won't continue to push for further integration, you're incredibly naive. It might not, on paper, be a federal superstate yet, but it's their goal. Whether they can achieve it is another matter, resistance might be too much. I personally do not want to take that risk.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  42. #8067
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Well no, it's not their job to come up with a plan that their consituencies didn't ask for. It's the job of the government. And those plans were shit, and they were rightly rejected.
    I'm confused. Who are you talking about? I'm talking about the politicians who represent the constituents, and doesn't that make those politicians "the gov't?"

    Rejecting bad plans is great.
    Rejecting the will of the nation is not.

    Failing to work toward the best compromise between the national will and the local constituents' will is the exact job of politicians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    That's like saying Ds should come up with a plan to build the Wall.
    When the D's were faced with the choice to build a wall or shut down the gov't, they made the wrong choice, IMO.

    Governance is about compromise. I remember saying at the time that the Dem's should have compromised, secured DACA or something and given Trump the stupid wall. Put it there, show how useless and pointless it is at accomplishing its intended goal, or let it prove me wrong.
    Either way, if the choice is to do your job or not do your job, then do your goddamn job to the best of your ability.

    If the US holds a popular vote on "wall: yes/no" and it comes down as yes, then it's the D's job to get the best damn wall 'Murica can build. Get it designed in my home town and built by companies in my state as much as possible, but get it done.

    That's what patriotism means. It's not selfishly insisting the gov't panders to you. It's standing by the will of the majority, even when it opposes your own will.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I mean, they shouldn't blindly obstruct any reasonable plan but they should be free to point out when the suggested plan is shitty. And again, the plans offered were shitty enough that enough of the ruling party's members voted against them that they wouldn't pass. So I don't think you can accuse the opposition parties of being uncooperative here. They just weren't given anything reasonable they could vote for.
    So long as Brexit is the law, they should act in good faith to make it happen to the best possible results of their constituents.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  43. #8068
    Well, you have a different view of how government should work, and that's fine. I even agree with you to some extent. But how it works in a parliamentary democracy is there's a ruling party/coalition and the opposition. The ruling party for the most part comes up with the plans for fulfilling their own agenda. The opposition provides critique and usually votes against the ruling party's plans, but the ruling party pushes their plan through because they have a majority of the votes in the house of commons (equivalent to congress, but here there's no midterms and so it's rare for a ruling party/coalition to lose it's house majority -also, fwiw our equivalent of a 'senate' is the house of lords which is basically just a bunch of old geezers who got appointed not elected, and who just rubber stamp everything, so they're kind of useless really).

    In this case, the ruling party came up with several plans, and had their own members supported any of them unanimously, one of them would have gone through. In every case, some of their own party rebelled, and the plans got axed. So I'm not sure you can blame that on the opposition members. First, they weren't asked to get involved in making the plans afaik. Second, they voted the way they always voted, and the governing party couldn't unite its own members behind its own plans (presumably because their own plans were shit).

    If you think that everyone should just vote their conscience and ignore the party line then yeah, that'd be nice. But rarely does it happen. It's so rare in fact that when it does happen it's usually because a proposal is so shitty some of the ruling party refuse to vote for it. That's what happened here.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 11-13-2019 at 04:37 PM.
  44. #8069
    Are you happy that this is how government works in our country? I'm not. The referendum for the EU was an example of how I prefer government to work... put ideas to the people and let them decide. To then reject that will is worse than outright dictatorship. It's pretending we're democratic when we're not. I'd rather just know we're in a dictatorship.

    Our entire political system needs an overhaul. There is no party that represents me. Most people feel this way. Most people vote for the least worst option, according to their blinkered view of what each party represents. No party truly represents the people, though each party pretends to. Politicians are only interested in their career, which mans they will say whatever it takes to secure votes.

    The opposition provides critique
    It shouldn't. It should oppose bad plans, and support good plans. But this isn't how it works. When the Tories say something, it's Labour's reflex to say the opposite. And vice versa. The result is a shitshow that causes division amongst the people and harms everyone.

    Had Labour said "we oppose leaving the EU, however we have voted for it so we will reluctantly support it" then they'd have my vote. One day, maybe this is how politics will work in this country. I'm not holding my breath.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  45. #8070
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    Had Labour said "we oppose leaving the EU, however we have voted for it so we will reluctantly support it" then they'd have my vote. One day, maybe this is how politics will work in this country. I'm not holding my breath.
    If the Tories had all said that we'd be fucked now.
  46. #8071
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Well, you have a different view of how government should work, and that's fine. I even agree with you to some extent. But how it works in a parliamentary democracy is there's a ruling party/coalition and the opposition. The ruling party for the most part comes up with the plans for fulfilling their own agenda. The opposition provides critique and usually votes against the ruling party's plans, but the ruling party pushes their plan through because they have a majority of the votes in the house of commons (equivalent to congress, but here there's no midterms and so it's rare for a ruling party/coalition to lose it's house majority -also, fwiw our equivalent of a 'senate' is the house of lords which is basically just a bunch of old geezers who got appointed not elected, and who just rubber stamp everything, so they're kind of useless really).

    In this case, the ruling party came up with several plans, and had their own members supported any of them unanimously, one of them would have gone through. In every case, some of their own party rebelled, and the plans got axed. So I'm not sure you can blame that on the opposition members. First, they weren't asked to get involved in making the plans afaik. Second, they voted the way they always voted, and the governing party couldn't unite its own members behind its own plans (presumably because their own plans were shit).

    If you think that everyone should just vote their conscience and ignore the party line then yeah, that'd be nice. But rarely does it happen. It's so rare in fact that when it does happen it's usually because a proposal is so shitty some of the ruling party refuse to vote for it. That's what happened here.
    You make many good points. I'm extremely naive about politics.

    I didn't know that's how your party system worked, so my critiques were probably pretty far off base.

    I still think my way has honor and integrity in it, which seems to be a bit lacking when the positions are pre-defined. What's the plan, then? Just pick someone on the opposition who actually opposes and let them be the one to talk that day/week/whatever?
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  47. #8072
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    If the Tories had all said that we'd be fucked now.
    Yeah, we'd all be dead and the country would be on fire. Proper fucked.

    This idea we'd be "fucked" is ludicrous. Two world wars didn't fuck us. Brexit certainly won't.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  48. #8073
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yeah, we'd all be dead and the country would be on fire. Proper fucked.

    This idea we'd be "fucked" is ludicrous. Two world wars didn't fuck us. Brexit certainly won't.
    Lol. The UK definitely got fucked in both WW. They were worse off after both than before. So unless you want to argue that fucked == armageddon, then yeah if any of those Brexit deals had gone through we'd have been fucked.
  49. #8074
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    You make many good points. I'm extremely naive about politics.

    I didn't know that's how your party system worked, so my critiques were probably pretty far off base.

    I still think my way has honor and integrity in it, which seems to be a bit lacking when the positions are pre-defined. What's the plan, then? Just pick someone on the opposition who actually opposes and let them be the one to talk that day/week/whatever?
    I mean who's to say that if a decent proposal on Brexit had been offered, some of the opposition wouldn't have gone with it. It's impossible to say. But like I said, the fact the ruling Tories couldn't push any of their own Brexit plans through suggests those plans must have been pretty awful. So, it's back to the drawing board. Again.
  50. #8075
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Lol. The UK definitely got fucked in both WW. They were worse off after both than before. So unless you want to argue that fucked == armageddon, then yeah if any of those Brexit deals had gone through we'd have been fucked.
    I guess we have different ideas what it means to be "fucked".

    By the way, the roaring 20s happened just after WWI, so we clearly weren't that fucked. I guess you can argue that our empire was fucked after WWII, but that's hardly something to cry about.

    Brexit doesn't have nearly the potential to cause the same kind of hardship that war does. If you really believe that, you're on another planet.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  51. #8076
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Brexit doesn't have nearly the potential to cause the same kind of hardship that war does. If you really believe that, you're on another planet.
    It fascinates me that the arguments of those of a pro-Brexit persuasion have become so desperate that they are actually saying things like, "it won't be as bad as being at war".
  52. #8077
    Jesus, I'm mocking poop's assertion that Brexit will fuck us.

    I don't think it will have a long-term negative effect. What do you care?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  53. #8078
    I'll go further for your benefit, dwarfman. I think being a member of the EU has negative economic consequences. It hands power over to a body whose priority is not the people of the UK. If we want to trade with the USA, or China, or anyone outside the EU, we have to do so under EU terms. We are not economically sovereign.

    If Brexit has negative economic consequences in the long term, then that is the fault of the government who will have mishandled the economy, not the fault of those who demand economic sovereignty. Japan's economy is just fine, despite them not being a member of a continent-wide bloc. How do you think the Japanese would react if they were forced into an Asian bloc dominated by China? Do you think that is what we in the UK should tolerate?

    I assume you're American. From an American pov, you should want Brexit, since it will likely result in the British people buying more American goods. It will benefit your economy. What's your interest in us remaining?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  54. #8079
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If Brexit has negative economic consequences in the long term, then that is the fault of the government who will have mishandled the economy, not the fault of those who demand economic sovereignty.
    Brilliant.

    "We won't be fucked, but if we are it won't be because of Brexit it will be because the government missed its golden opportunity."
  55. #8080
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    As an American, one reason I'd like to see you remain is that it is not a step away from a unified world gov't.

    I think that in the long run, a unified world gov't is inevitable, and it's not going to be any panacea or anything, but it is the path we're on.

    However, I'm not blind to the power such an entity will wield, and there's every good reason to not simply push the first contenders up to that height.
    The US Constitution sought to try and create a system of checks and balances that would prevent long-term, high-level corruption, but its cracks are showing.
    The US Constitution relies on the power and will of an informed electorate, and when the electorate simply ignores the responsibility incumbent upon them to remain informed, then the system pretty much breaks.

    It is an unfortunate fact of human nature that we simply want to be left alone to live our lives, but if we ignore the greater world, it is to the detriment of our lives.

    The US Constitution doesn't handle this paradox very well, IMO.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  56. #8081
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Brilliant.

    "We won't be fucked, but if we are it won't be because of Brexit it will be because the government missed its golden opportunity."
    Well yeah. But by the definition of "fucked" you're using, we were also fucked after the financial crash, which might I remind you happened while we were a member of the EU. That wasn't because we were in the EU though, it happened because of bankers mismanaging the economy. I don't blame the EU for the incompetence of others. You shouldn't blame Brexit for us being fucked if it's due to government's incompetence, even if it would be convenient to do so.

    Of course our economy can thrive outside the EU. Japan's does. USA's does. China, Brazil and India not doing so bad either. Switzerland are doing just great, Norway too. Oh and Canada. New Zealand and Australia, in terms of per capita. Why do we need to be in the EU to thrive? Why do we need to hand over economic control to an outside body? Why am I the crazy one for wanting us to be in complete control of our own affairs?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  57. #8082
    1: Dwarfman is British.

    2: I'm going to go ahead an uncede the point that Brexit, no matter how and at what cost is or ever was the will of the people. An analogous position would be to say that had remain won, and then the EU asserted its status as a federation and announced the absolution of the constituent countries' sovereignty, to not accept the UK's status as a EU province would be to go against the will of the people.

    It was a multifaceted and complex issue erroneously put to a binary referendum. This is one of the most glaring flaws of direct democracy. It is very hard to fold nuance into the system and is among the reasons the founders of our modern democracies almost always defaulted to representative democracy. It's not that the latter is without its flaws, but do use all a favor and understand the short comings of direct democracy before rah-rahing it.

    In closing, the majority of remainers do not wish to remain at any cost, nor do the majority of brexiters wish to leave at any cost. There are certainly scenarios in which the cost of leaving is obviously too great. Whether leaving with no deal falls within the will of the people is the discussion to be had. Considering how close the vote was, I'd be skeptical that the will of the people is to leave without a deal-- but that is the debate, not will of the people vs subverting the will of the people. The will of the people is not a settled matter, and certainly not settled in the direction of brexit at any cost.

  58. #8083
    This is one of the most glaring flaws of direct democracy.
    This might be a reasonable argument. However, once you give the vote to the people, you simply have to respect it.

    In closing, the majority of remainers do not wish to remain at any cost, nor do the majority of brexiters wish to leave at any cost.
    Without getting into pedantry about the literal meaning of "at any cost", I don't think this is true at all. Moreover, I don't see how anyone can make this assertion. I'm willing to take whatever economic cost comes our way in the short term. If our economy fails, that's because either 1) the government has mishandled the economy, or 2) the people are unwilling to work hard enough to improve the economy, or 3) a bit of both. Only the naive who voted "leave" thinks it will be an easy ride when we do actually leave. I expected it to take a decade for us to recover, and we haven't even started yet.

    Remainers are willing to abandon democracy to remain. That's a higher cost than economic hardship imo, which is also a high cost. So I think we're at the point where "at any cost" is close to the bone.

    Considering how close the vote was
    This is kind of frustrating. If you're constantly getting it in with QQ vs AK, it's not close, you're outright winning. The difference was more than the population of our second most populous city. 52/48 might sound close, but it's not. It's 1.4 million people from 46.5 million. You can't simply ignore that many people on the argument it's "close". That ignores the fact that if leave won by one single vote, it still won. There's just the question of error then, but when 1.4 million is the difference, that's well beyond the margin of error and the result is decisive.

    I'd be skeptical that the will of the people is to leave without a dea
    And this is bollocks. Everyone who voted to leave wants to leave the EU. I don't give a fuck if we strike a deal or not, I prefer us not to if that deal is basically us being screwed over. If anyone who voted leave is afraid of us leaving without a deal, they are the idiots. No deal is the default.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  59. #8084
    1: Dwarfman is British.
    This being the case, he's entitled to challenge me strongly on this matter. I mean he's entitled to his opinion regardless, but outsiders shouldn't get caught up in the divisive nature of this debate.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  60. #8085
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This might be a reasonable argument. However, once you give the vote to the people, you simply have to respect it.
    But given how close the vote was, why are you so against another, updated vote?


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is kind of frustrating. If you're constantly getting it in with QQ vs AK, it's not close, you're outright winning. The difference was more than the population of our second most populous city. 52/48 might sound close, but it's not. It's 1.4 million people from 46.5 million. You can't simply ignore that many people on the argument it's "close". That ignores the fact that if leave won by one single vote, it still won. There's just the question of error then, but when 1.4 million is the difference, that's well beyond the margin of error and the result is decisive.
    Not how math works, unfortunately. 52/48 is close by any definition of the word, regardless of the raw number of people who voted.

    And yeah, QQ vs. AK is also close. You may be winning with QQ, but only barely.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    And this is bollocks. Everyone who voted to leave wants to leave the EU. I don't give a fuck if we strike a deal or not, I prefer us not to if that deal is basically us being screwed over. If anyone who voted leave is afraid of us leaving without a deal, they are the idiots. No deal is the default.
    Going back and forth from what everyone wants to what you want and vice-versa seems a bit naive.
  61. #8086
    Serious question: It's been three years since the referendum. Should the votes of people who died since then still count? (over 65s voted 60/40 leave - that's a decisive majority by the way). What about people who since have turned 18? Should they now be given a say in the future of the country over someone who's already dead?
  62. #8087
    the QQ vs AK analogy is unworkably flawed. As far as the election goes we don't know which side had QQ and which side had AK, or if those were even the hands at play. Certainly most people thought it was more like remain with an over pair and leave with a suited connector. Considering we only have the educated forecasts from pre-vote and an N of 1, it's pretty hard to argue that it wasn't close.

    As Poop has pointed out, it's odd how you mix up your views with the views of the populace/leavers without seeming to notice. You also conveniently reject the will of anyone who voted brexit but may have changed their mind with the justification that they were naive or are idiots. You now say that you know it won't be all berries and cream in the short term-- yet I distinctly remember you explaining how easily it will be for fishermen to find new markets for their catches or, and I don't think I'm making a parody of your claims, the British will simply eat more fish... Apparently lots of people were naive going into the referendum, and it seems naive to claim none of them have become more grounded and had a change of heart.

    You flatly assert that every single vote for leave wants to leave even without a deal. This is absurd. The leave campaign sold potpourri, but now that it's time to deliver, all they've got is a choice between a couple different sacks of shit.
  63. #8088
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    1: Dwarfman is British.

    In closing, the majority of remainers do not wish to remain at any cost, nor do the majority of brexiters wish to leave at any cost. There are certainly scenarios in which the cost of leaving is obviously too great. Whether leaving with no deal falls within the will of the people is the discussion to be had. Considering how close the vote was, I'd be skeptical that the will of the people is to leave without a deal-- but that is the debate, not will of the people vs subverting the will of the people. The will of the people is not a settled matter, and certainly not settled in the direction of brexit at any cost.

    Firstly, thanks for clarifying to Ong that I am indeed British

    To the second part of your post I have quoted, this is pretty much my feeling exactly (I of course voted Remain).

    Do I think we should have another referendum? No.

    Do I think we should have held the first referendum? No.

    Do I think it's possible for a deal that satisfies even a majority of Leave voters? No.

    Do I therefore think Article 50 should be revoked? No.

    Do I think Brexit will ultimately be good for the country in terms of both economics and policy? Absolutely not.

    My point is by answering no to all of my questions above, Brexit is a quite incredible situation where an entire country has effectively checkmated itself. There is no right answer, there never will be a right answer. There will never be an answer that attracts majority support amongst the public. The 2016 referendum itself did not attract majority support for leaving both because 30% of the electorate did not vote and because the question posed on the ballot paper was inappropriate for the situation.

    Rightly or wrongly, we will more than likely never leave the EU because of Brexit's unresolvable nature, but the circus around it will go on for perhaps another decade.
  64. #8089
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Certainly most people thought it was more like remain with an over pair and leave with a suited connector.
    The feeling was that Remain was even stronger than that - maybe I'm in a bubble because I live in London, which is the most pro-remain part of the country, but even on the day of the vote it was just inconceivable that Remain would lose.

    I still remember how gobsmacked I was when the very first region's count came in (Newcastle if I recall correctly) and it was almost immediately clear that Leave were going to win.
  65. #8090
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    the British will simply eat more fish...
    I believe he also added words to the effect of "I like fish", which presumably he spoke on behalf of all Leavers.
  66. #8091
    Hey poop.


    But given how close the vote was, why are you so against another, updated vote?

    The vote wasn't close, and regardless, the last result has not been actioned yet. If Corbyn wins the next election, I don't think we should have another election before he even gets the keys to Number 10.


    Not how math works, unfortunately.

    It is how democracy works, fortunately.


    Serious question: It's been three years since the referendum. Should the votes of people who died since then still count?

    Serious answer - yes.


    If I die ten minutes after voting in the next election, should my vote be counted? Many people who voted to leave did so because they felt it was beneficial to their children. You might strongly disagree with them, but it's not for you to say "haha you're dead, your vote doesn't count".


    Besides, do you think 1.4 million people who voted to leave have died?


    (over 65s voted 60/40 leave - that's a decisive majority by the way)

    According to whom? Polls? I don't recall answering the question "what is your age" on the voting form.


    What about people who since have turned 18?

    No. What if I turn 18 the day after the election? Should I suddenly be allowed my say? What about someone who turns 18 the day after? How do you not see the problem here?


    Should they now be given a say in the future of the country over someone who's already dead?

    Election results would never happen if we played this game. We'd have daily recounts, and it would cost an absolute fucking fortune to administer such ideas.

    Are you seriously being serious with these questions? Or did you just not think it through for longer than it took to type?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  67. #8092
    @boost

    As far as the election goes we don't know which side had QQ and which side had AK,
    Leave had QQ. This analogy works on the basis of 52/48. Forget the fact that QQ is actually 58%, I should've said AKs to be closer. Whatever. Just replace xx and xx with a hand that is 52% favourite.

    You also conveniently reject the will of anyone who voted brexit but may have changed their mind with the justification that they were naive or are idiots.
    How do people think this is a serious argument? I vote Tory. Election over. Shit I've changed my mind because I'm an idiot. Change my vote.

    That is what you're saying. It's nuts, it is not how democracy should ever work. You vote, that's it. Jesus.

    You now say that you know it won't be all berries and cream in the short term--
    I've always said this. I've never said the economy would magically improve the day we left. I've always insisted the economy would need to adapt. I just argued that over time, that adaptation is for the greater good.

    yet I distinctly remember you explaining how easily it will be for fishermen to find new markets for their catches or, and I don't think I'm making a parody of your claims, the British will simply eat more fish..
    I mean I realise that I play the "troll" card when it's seemingly convenient, but don't take everything I say to poop as honest. If I say "we'll eat more fish" then I'm being facetious.

    Apparently lots of people were naive going into the referendum, and it seems naive to claim none of them have become more grounded and had a change of heart.
    It doesn't matter, and I'd say this if remain won.

    You flatly assert that every single vote for leave wants to leave even without a deal.
    No, you've chosen to interpret it that way. I'm saying that if a deal cannot be agreed, no deal is the default, and anyone who voted to leave without realising this is naive.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  68. #8093
    @dwarf

    Do I think we should have another referendum? No.

    Do I think we should have held the first referendum? No.

    Do I think it's possible for a deal that satisfies even a majority of Leave voters? No.

    Do I therefore think Article 50 should be revoked? No.

    Do I think Brexit will ultimately be good for the country in terms of both economics and policy? Absolutely not.
    I respect this position.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  69. #8094
    Funny how we'll being having our second general election since the referendum, but Ong thinks another referendum would be a crime against democracy. Apparently we're only allowed repeated votes on certain things in a democracy.
  70. #8095
    We haven't left the EU yet poop. We don't vote for something, then have another vote before we've actioned the last vote. Again, that isn't how democracy should ever work. It would render the entire process pointless.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  71. #8096
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by dwarfman3 View Post
    I still remember how gobsmacked I was when the very first region's count came in (Newcastle if I recall correctly) and it was almost immediately clear that Leave were going to win.
    *sigh*

    I try to pay attention to both sides, but it's hard to find intelligent voices on either side.
    It doesn't help that my voice is not very intelligent on political topics, and so I'm seeking something that is hard to know when I see it.
    Do they disagree with me because they're wrong and stubborn? Or because I am?

    Those intelligent voices don't seem to be attracting much media attention, and are going largely unheard by people seeking them.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  72. #8097
    By the way, a referendum where majority wins would mean that a proven, indisputable result of 25, 000,000 vs 24,999,999 is "decisive",

    Decisive doesn't mean what you think it means. It means "providing a definite result".

    1.4 million votes is clearly a definite result. There's no way you can argue a recount would give a different result.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  73. #8098
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    We don't vote for something, then have another vote before we've actioned the last vote.
    Many have made excellent points on both sides of this in the recent posts, but I don't think this one's gotten the credit it deserves.

    There can be reasons to go against this, but I don't recall any good ones being posited for this specific case.

    @poop:
    Do you agree with the quoted bit. At least vis-a-vis the integrity of democracy?

    If not... care to show me how I'm being stubborn and not seeing your reasons?

    If so... what are the outstanding circumstances that we should consider in making an exception for this specific issue?
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  74. #8099
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    By the way, a referendum where majority wins would mean that a proven, indisputable result of 25, 000,000 vs 24,999,999 is "decisive",

    Decisive doesn't mean what you think it means. It means "providing a definite result".

    1.4 million votes is clearly a definite result. There's no way you can argue a recount would give a different result.
    You're using your own definitions again. And you're still going back to this 1.4 million number because it makes a good impression on you because it's a large number. But that's not how percentages work, see.

    Decisive implies there is a clear consensus among the population. Here, there wasn't. This means there's the problem that it's much more likely 2% of the population will have changed their mind than if the difference was 60/40 or 70/30 or whatever. So no, it was not 'decisive', as much as you'd like to argue it was.
  75. #8100
    You're using your own definitions again.
    No, I googled it to be reasonably accurate. You seem to think it means "substantial" or words to that effect. It doesn't. I literally copy/pasted the google definition. You're the one defining words to suit you, not me.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •