The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

[Niall_Quinn]

This is how all Remain voters are. I checked out every last one of them, and they all say this.

[Letters]

Honestly Letters, Mrs Brown's Boys? Is that how it works? You get the TV viewing figures and categorise peoples' intelligence based on their sense of humour? Or lack of it?

It was an example.
If you're seriously going to argue that the voting public are, on average, intelligent and well informed on the issues surrounding this and any other vote then I'm not sure how to help you.
Will reply to the rest later or tomorrow or something. Probably tomorrow as it will distract me from working again, which is this place's raison d'etre.

[GP]

Dawkins thinks you are an ignorant fool too, by the way.

Well, he is.

So am I.

So are you.

[Niall_Quinn]

It was an example.
If you're seriously going to argue that the voting public are, on average, intelligent and well informed on the issues surrounding this and any other vote then I'm not sure how to help you.
Will reply to the rest later or tomorrow or something. Probably tomorrow as it will distract me from working again, which is this place's raison d'etre.

That's okay, I can get by without your help anyway. I'm not telling you anything about the intelligence of the British public, you're the one telling me all about it via Dawkins. My view is the range of intelligence is broad. Some intelligent people voted Remain, other intelligent people voted Leave, some people of average intelligence voted for one or the other, same with absolute thickos. And everyone and everywhere in between. That's my guess. Compared to your assertion the public is too thick to vote because, for example, Mrs Brown's Boys is a popular TV program.

Question. Is it only Leave voters that watch Mrs Brown's Boys? I suspect so, but what if there are some Remain voters who also watch it? Wouldn't that mean the Remain side is thick too?

I know. Why don't we leave it to our betters to decide everything for us? I'm sure they would be up for that. They are "servants" after all, so they'd be happy to dictate these things. and they work for us and have our best interests at heart. Fact is, they probably know more about what we want for ourselves than we do. And their opinions on our lives are likely much more valuable than our own opinions about ourselves. I see what you are saying.

Might as well go the whole way. What's the point of general elections?

But you see where we are now? You've drifted so far away from your supposed belief system - government, authority, voting, and so on - that I, of all people, need to remind you what you claim to believe in. For myself, by all means do away with all referenda and votes of every kind. And do away with government while you are at it. We don't need it and we'd be far better off without it. Of course when I state my position you then revert back to full authoritarian mode claiming we need government because there would be chaos otherwise.

So which is it? Do you believe in this constitutional democracy (we are actually a constitutional monarchy by whatever) or don't you? If you believe in it then what's your purpose in calling the majority who engaged in a system you believe in stupid? And if you don't believe in it then why are you so dismissive of my views on determination? You seem to believe both things at the same time.

[Niall_Quinn]

Nanny has just released a new commercial warning us that rain kills.

Despite austerity, I'm glad the money has been found to provide this valuable message in a lethal world.

[Letters]

For example, in questioning the mandate I show you the turnout figures for the referendum compared to those of recent general elections. How else do you define a mandate in a democracy? How then is the referendum result a flimsy mandate

Well, I already answered that. Maybe you didn't comprehend my answer...
It's not about the turnout, it's about the margin of the result and the fluctuation in polls leading up to it. Farage said before the vote that a 52-48 vote to Remain would be "unfinished business", that was the vote to Leave and now it's "The people have spoken. It's a clear mandate. You lost, get over it you Remoaner".

Any vote is a snapshot of "the people"s opinion on a day. Pick a different day and you'll get a different answer. Maybe not very different, but different. Around the time of the vote I saw people saying that they voted Leave as a protest vote as if it was a by election in East Grinstead, they didn't expect the result to go that way and would have voted differently if they thought Leave would win. Maybe some people who voted Remain have also changed their minds. Who knows? I changed my mind during the campaign, I'm sure others did too, maybe in a different direction. I'm sure some people have changed their views since the vote. If we took a vote now then we'd get a different result in terms of number of votes for each side. Leave may still win, maybe not. But it was close enough to suggest that over time if you took a vote then on some days over the last couple of years Remain would have won and on other days Leave would. But because of that snapshot on one day and a relatively narrow result (relative to the number of people who voted) we are now taking an irreversible path the consequences of which will be felt for generations. So yes, it's a pretty flimsy mandate for a serious decision. You get a cooling off period when you change energy suppliers FFS! Maybe the consequences of this will be positive. The fact is for all the lies on both sides no-one actually knows. Saw this in The Metro this morning:

"Brexit secretary David Davis...admitted the government has made no assessment of the economic cost of leaving the EU without a deal and he hasn't looked at whether UK citizens would lose access to the EHIC health care after Brexit"



And if the government didn't do any proper analysis on this you can bet most people in the general public didn't either. Do you think that the public, in general, have the knowledge and expertise to properly make this decision? If you're voting Leave because of "bloody foreigners" or because of lies painted on the side of a bus then you didn't deserve a vote. And, for balance, if you voted Remain because you thought the sky would fall in if we leave or because you don't like change then you probably didn't either. And if you Googled "What is the EU" right after the polls closed then, whichever way you voted, you didn't deserve to.

I realise that not all people who voted Leave are idiots or xenophobic or racist, I'm tired of your straw man argument saying that's what Remoaners are claiming. I haven't said anywhere that everyone who disagrees with me must be an idiot. I'm sure a lot of people who agreed with me are idiots too.
But the point is there are a lot of ignorant people about. Do I seriously need to back that up? You think I'm one of them. Maybe you're right, I don't pretend to be an expert on the EU. Why did I get a vote on this? It's nothing to do with letting our "betters" decide but it's not unreasonable to think that decisions should be made by people who know what they're talking about.

Is your argument that the stupidity cancelled itself out? That seems unlikely, especially as there is evidence to show that people with lower education level were more likely to vote Leave:

http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/07/if-you...-this-6433145/

I know what Dawkins thinks of me, or my views, by the way and I'm no fan of his either in general but that doesn't mean that he's wrong here.

I think the argument about having a very limited choice in elections is a valid one but I'm not sure what it has to do with this. The point is a general election result is not binding for generations. And actually thinking about it...there are alternatives, there is some diversity. There's the Greens, there's UKIP, now there's Corbyn. The fact that people keep rejecting these options doesn't mean they aren't there. I think you're over-estimating people if you think there's a "movement". And doesn't the fact that people keep voting for the same parties despite a history of them letting them down when there are alternatives available rather underline the thesis that people often don't make particularly wise decisions?

The problem with one person, one vote is that the underlying premise is that everyone has a right to an opinion (fine) and that everyone's opinion is equally valid. Not fine. Obviously not true. We all have different experience, different knowledge. I believe in government as I don't see an alternative if you want an infrastructure, you say you do see an alternative although you've never outlined how it would work which is a bit like an 14 year old insisting he knows what a vagina looks like but refusing to describe it on request. [That worked better before the advent of smartphones, admittedly].

I just think that a permanent change like this should not be made based on a one off vote with such a slender majority. It's perfectly consistent to believe in the idea of democracy and government while thinking that our version of it isn't very good and lamenting ill-informed decisions that people make.

[Letters]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39325561

[GP]

UK

[Letters]

[GP]