FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Trump and farage

Trump and farage

Jump to: Newest in thread

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

What a nightmare tag team for liberals

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

I was expecting giant foam hands and loud rock music in between the punch lines..... Do do do... Another one bites the dust

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I was watching Last Week Tonight on HBO and the host came up with a great idea - I said that Trump should quit the race now because there is a good chance he will lose the election to Hillary, which would be embarrassing for him. Then, when he quits, he should tell everyone that it was all a test to see just how far the American people would go with someone who says absolutely crazy things and make a point that the system needs to change.

He would go down in history as a legend, and he will leave the race not having actually lost to Hillary. I think it would be epic and it would fit well with his anti-establishment rhetoric.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

You only have to see how many people get "conned" out of all their money to realise people will belive any old shite if they think it will benefit them.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I was watching Last Week Tonight on HBO and the host came up with a great idea - I said that Trump should quit the race now because there is a good chance he will lose the election to Hillary, which would be embarrassing for him. Then, when he quits, he should tell everyone that it was all a test to see just how far the American people would go with someone who says absolutely crazy things and make a point that the system needs to change.

He would go down in history as a legend, and he will leave the race not having actually lost to Hillary. I think it would be epic and it would fit well with his anti-establishment rhetoric. "

That actually works! That would be hilarious. Imagine a speech where his voice slowly changes from his whiney current one to a posh, upper class English accent as he explains it. He also pulls off his wig to reveal a reasonable hair cut underneath and gradually starts to wipe the orange tan off his face.

A bit like the ending to 'The Usual Suspects'

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You only have to see how many people get "conned" out of all their money to realise people will belive any old shite if they think it will benefit them.

Yup, then you wait a few years, rebrand it from communism to socialism and people vote for it all over again!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"You only have to see how many people get "conned" out of all their money to realise people will belive any old shite if they think it will benefit them.

Yup, then you wait a few years, rebrand it from communism to socialism and people vote for it all over again! "
.

I've told you the answer, you keep everything you work for but it gets reset on your death and it all passes to the state who then sell it off and keep the profit as your lifetime tax take

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Keeps everybody on their toes!

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You only have to see how many people get "conned" out of all their money to realise people will belive any old shite if they think it will benefit them.

Yup, then you wait a few years, rebrand it from communism to socialism and people vote for it all over again! .

I've told you the answer, you keep everything you work for but it gets reset on your death and it all passes to the state who then sell it off and keep the profit as your lifetime tax take"

I actually think the world would be a better place of we had a cap on the amount you could leave each of your children and the rest just went back to the state.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"You only have to see how many people get "conned" out of all their money to realise people will belive any old shite if they think it will benefit them.

Yup, then you wait a few years, rebrand it from communism to socialism and people vote for it all over again! .

I've told you the answer, you keep everything you work for but it gets reset on your death and it all passes to the state who then sell it off and keep the profit as your lifetime tax take

I actually think the world would be a better place of we had a cap on the amount you could leave each of your children and the rest just went back to the state."
.

That's coz you'd "invest" in your children and not invest for your children.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Pair of idiots but I have a feeling they could recognise an empty seat on a train

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The americans are in a lose lose situation do you choose trump who has no experience in office and has a blatant disdain for anyone who isnt white american or Hilary the war monger at this moment id say their best bet is to quickly change the constitution and allow obama a 3rd term

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The americans are in a lose lose situation do you choose trump who has no experience in office and has a blatant disdain for anyone who isnt white american or Hilary the war monger at this moment id say their best bet is to quickly change the constitution and allow obama a 3rd term "

I hate term limits. One of our best Presidents was FDR, and he wasn't term limited. I think term limits are extremely undemocratic.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

I hate term limits. One of our best Presidents was FDR, and he wasn't term limited. I think term limits are extremely undemocratic. "
.

There designed to stop the Putin effect.

Some good presidents didn't even make two terms!.... The trouble with three here is, I'm not sure Obama has been any good either, sure he didn't fuck the place up like the other two will do but..

All I know is I'm biased coz i was robbed by Clinton of a very nice boat ride to new York city

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I hate term limits. One of our best Presidents was FDR, and he wasn't term limited. I think term limits are extremely undemocratic. .

There designed to stop the Putin effect.

Some good presidents didn't even make two terms!.... The trouble with three here is, I'm not sure Obama has been any good either, sure he didn't fuck the place up like the other two will do but..

All I know is I'm biased coz i was robbed by Clinton of a very nice boat ride to new York city

In the US, presidential term limits were a direct response to FDR being elected to a 4th term. I'm sick of politicians trying to save us from ourselves - it just leads to backlash and stupid decisions like voting for Trump.

I'm not a huge supporter of Obama, but if the three were put in front of me? I know which one I would vote for.

But I don't get that choice...

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

I hate term limits. One of our best Presidents was FDR, and he wasn't term limited. I think term limits are extremely undemocratic. .

There designed to stop the Putin effect.

Some good presidents didn't even make two terms!.... The trouble with three here is, I'm not sure Obama has been any good either, sure he didn't fuck the place up like the other two will do but..

All I know is I'm biased coz i was robbed by Clinton of a very nice boat ride to new York city

I'm not a huge supporter of Obama, but if the three were put in front of me? I know which one I would vote for.

But I don't get that choice... "
.

I'm a massive fan of FDR but he would never have made a fourth term anyhow his war effort had effectively sped up his polio demise and left the us with the unfortunate position of having Truman the carpet salesman who is still miles better than trump or Clinton lol

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You only have to see how many people get "conned" out of all their money to realise people will belive any old shite if they think it will benefit them.

Yup, then you wait a few years, rebrand it from communism to socialism and people vote for it all over again! .

I've told you the answer, you keep everything you work for but it gets reset on your death and it all passes to the state who then sell it off and keep the profit as your lifetime tax take

I actually think the world would be a better place of we had a cap on the amount you could leave each of your children and the rest just went back to the state."

The first problem is that I would fundamentally disagree with the idea the state is better at spending money than individuals. I think the cold war proved this beyond reasonable doubt.

The second problem is that a heck of a lot of wealth creating businesses probably wouldn't have been built under those circumstances.

Finally, it's incredibly easy to avoid. There are more than 180 countries in the world and the number grows all the time. I only need 1 of those countries not to implement this policy and then I can simply transfer wealth into it to get around the tax.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I hate term limits. One of our best Presidents was FDR, and he wasn't term limited. I think term limits are extremely undemocratic. .

There designed to stop the Putin effect.

Some good presidents didn't even make two terms!.... The trouble with three here is, I'm not sure Obama has been any good either, sure he didn't fuck the place up like the other two will do but..

All I know is I'm biased coz i was robbed by Clinton of a very nice boat ride to new York city

I'm not a huge supporter of Obama, but if the three were put in front of me? I know which one I would vote for.

But I don't get that choice... .

Well he died in office, so I think its fair to say he couldn't make the fourth term.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You only have to see how many people get "conned" out of all their money to realise people will belive any old shite if they think it will benefit them.

Yup, then you wait a few years, rebrand it from communism to socialism and people vote for it all over again! .

I've told you the answer, you keep everything you work for but it gets reset on your death and it all passes to the state who then sell it off and keep the profit as your lifetime tax take

I actually think the world would be a better place of we had a cap on the amount you could leave each of your children and the rest just went back to the state.

The first problem is that I would fundamentally disagree with the idea the state is better at spending money than individuals. I think the cold war proved this beyond reasonable doubt.

The second problem is that a heck of a lot of wealth creating businesses probably wouldn't have been built under those circumstances.

Of course it's easy to get around, but I still think more should be done to stop the hoarding of money throughout generations.

And I'm not convinced individuals are better than the government at spending money. I think individuals excel when the amount is within a certain frame, but once you get into bigger figures I think individuals are absolutely horrible at spenodng it appropriately. I could give dozens of examples to counter your cold war example of bad government spending, but I dont think I need to. You could think of them on your own - or turn on the tv for a day and you'll see them.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You only have to see how many people get "conned" out of all their money to realise people will belive any old shite if they think it will benefit them.

Yup, then you wait a few years, rebrand it from communism to socialism and people vote for it all over again! .

I've told you the answer, you keep everything you work for but it gets reset on your death and it all passes to the state who then sell it off and keep the profit as your lifetime tax take

I actually think the world would be a better place of we had a cap on the amount you could leave each of your children and the rest just went back to the state.

The first problem is that I would fundamentally disagree with the idea the state is better at spending money than individuals. I think the cold war proved this beyond reasonable doubt.

The second problem is that a heck of a lot of wealth creating businesses probably wouldn't have been built under those circumstances.

Of course it's easy to get around, but I still think more should be done to stop the hoarding of money throughout generations.

Government spending has its place and sometimes government it will fund valuable research the private sector wouldn't. But having worked in both the public and the private sector, there's no question in my mind which is generally more efficient. In proper capitalism, the inefficient companies die. The biggest problem we have today is that governments keep bailing them out! At least the US government let Lehman brothers rot, as they deserved to.

The problem with the UK public sector is that its like a bucket with holes that complains it does have enough water.

I actually agree that most of the public services are under funded though. But i dont see any point giving them more money either. Their systems and processes are shite so they'd only waste whatever else they were given. If they fixed the problems then I'd be happy to pay more taxes and fund them properly.

The reason they are underfunded us because treasury doesn't understand how to fix the problems so it hopes they will become more efficient if it starves them of cash. It won't.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Government spending has its place and sometimes government it will fund valuable research the private sector wouldn't. But having worked in both the public and the private sector, there's no question in my mind which is generally more efficient. In proper capitalism, the inefficient companies die. The biggest problem we have today is that governments keep bailing them out! At least the US government let Lehman brothers rot, as they deserved to.

The problem with the UK public sector is that its like a bucket with holes that complains it does have enough water.

The reason they are underfunded us because treasury doesn't understand how to fix the problems so it hopes they will become more efficient if it starves them of cash. It won't. "

You vastly undersell government achievements with the way you word things. In the US, the government funds huge amounts of research projects that private funders wouldn't touch or wouldn't pay enough money to make. I know this to be true in a personal sense - it's what I do.

Individuals buy the most ridiulous things. Individuals can be horrible at watching their finances. Individuals can be just as wasteful, maybe more so, then the governments they regularly criticize. And the worst bit - individuals can be greedy, money hoarding, self interested people who could bring the economy to a halt of left to proper capitalism." It's already happening bit by bit in the US, where even the government is packed full of company and rich individuals' cronies.

Proper capitalism is the resurgence of indentured servitude. And I think its is coming along rather nicely, after all, have you seem the ratio of average debt to average income? Proper capitalism, indeed.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The problem with the UK public sector is that its like a bucket with holes that complains it does have enough water.

The reason they are underfunded us because treasury doesn't understand how to fix the problems so it hopes they will become more efficient if it starves them of cash. It won't.

I don't think I undersell government achievements. I've said on other threads that Google would never have invented the Internet! But equally government can have massive blind spots. For example, planes were entirely developed by the private sector for private customers and government only caught on later. Some great things have been achieved in medicine by government funding. But why is Bill Gates the key person getting off his backside to eradicate polio worldwide? Because the British government only cares whether the British population has polio!

I think our difference of opinion is that I don't think people "can" be "greedy, money hoarding, self interested" - I think the vast majority of people are!! Therefore, the only sustainable system is one that isn't inhibited by self interest and doesn't rely on people not being greedy.

In my opinion. And we should really be having this discussion as a 5, in a hot tub.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The problem with the UK public sector is that its like a bucket with holes that complains it does have enough water.

The reason they are underfunded us because treasury doesn't understand how to fix the problems so it hopes they will become more efficient if it starves them of cash. It won't.

What every country needs is a true socialist government where the government and the economy work for the poeple and not the ones who fund them this type of government has a 100% success rate the problem is there are very few people who love their cou try enough to put their personal gain to the side and work for the gain of everybody

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The problem with the UK public sector is that its like a bucket with holes that complains it does have enough water.

The reason they are underfunded us because treasury doesn't understand how to fix the problems so it hopes they will become more efficient if it starves them of cash. It won't.

What everyone need is to learn what the agent-principle problem is and why it applies to both the private sector and the public sector. Then they wouldn't keep proposing failed solutions to problems.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The problem with the UK public sector is that its like a bucket with holes that complains it does have enough water.

The reason they are underfunded us because treasury doesn't understand how to fix the problems so it hopes they will become more efficient if it starves them of cash. It won't.

In my opinion. And we should really be having this discussion as a 5, in a hot tub. "

Ok, you get the-doors to agree to the hot tub and I'm there

For the record, I think you and I agree on a lot, I just think you are scewed in favor of individuals where I prefer the government. And this may be experience based - if you grew up in the US where companies are the new aristocracy then you might see it a bit differently....

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I am certainly biased in favour of individuals, but not to any ideological extreme. For example, there was a programme designed to privatise part of the Ministry of Defence and I think that would have been a terrible idea. Thankfully it collapsed. Equally I think nationalising our railways would be a disaster.

The problem I see in America is the sheer volume of lobbying and political influence for hire. So I'm not a fan of that and think it goes against the principles of capitalism as laid out by Mr Smith.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" You vastly undersell government achievements with the way you word things. In the US, the government funds huge amounts of research projects that private funders wouldn't touch or wouldn't pay enough money to make. I know this to be true in a personal sense - it's what I do."

Without disagreeing that Governments have a part to play in prioritising, directing and assisting projects I think the USA falls into the category of 'State Subsidy' on many occasions. Indeed the WTO found that was the case with NASA and Boeing. Where does research paid for by the tax payer stop being for the national good and become a profit opportunity for private shareholders?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

". But why is Bill Gates the key person getting off his backside to eradicate polio worldwide? Because the British government only cares whether the British population has polio!

In my opinion. And we should really be having this discussion as a 5, in a hot tub.

Ok, you get the-doors to agree to the hot tub and I'm there

The polio vaccine was actually invented by a guy called Jonas Salk,a humble "lab guy" who spent most of his life working on it and then gave the cure away for free and carried on working in his lab... If you ever get time you should read his book it's extremely inspiring.

Funding came from government and charity the Roosevelt's were very generous for obvious reasons...

What I really want to know Courtney is wether I need to bring a dildo of my own to beat him with or can I borrow yours

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

". But why is Bill Gates the key person getting off his backside to eradicate polio worldwide? Because the British government only cares whether the British population has polio!

In my opinion. And we should really be having this discussion as a 5, in a hot tub.

Ok, you get the-doors to agree to the hot tub and I'm there

Funding came from government and charity the Roosevelt's were very generous for obvious reasons...

What I really want to know Courtney is wether I need to bring a dildo of my own to beat him with or can I borrow yours

We also pretend to be a Mormon couple on occasion you know

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"
.

What really matters to me, is wether aircraft have been advanced faster through NASA government funded technology or slower than what the private sector could have done.

I think the fact is the private sector would still have you flying on bi-planes if the choice was spend 40 trillion on research to gain a massive advantage on your competition in 30 years time?.

In reality it comes down to making reasonable profit, if there making that there usually pretty happy and technological advancement goes on the back burner.

If you look back to FDRs great depression spending spree he pretty much got it right, he stepped in where private equity failed and created vast infrastructure with that spending which due to the recession he got in reality a very cheap deal, the hoover dam alone which feeds most of Californias agricultural sector(one that's worth trillions) would never have come to fruition without government spending.... What he realised is you can't simulate failed capitalism with austerity but more importantly you can't spend your way out of it either.... But you can reap huge rewards if you spend big and spend wisely and the very very most important bit is his spending benefited the whole and not the few

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 25/08/16 15:26:47]

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

". But why is Bill Gates the key person getting off his backside to eradicate polio worldwide? Because the British government only cares whether the British population has polio!

In my opinion. And we should really be having this discussion as a 5, in a hot tub.

Ok, you get the-doors to agree to the hot tub and I'm there

Funding came from government and charity the Roosevelt's were very generous for obvious reasons...

What I really want to know Courtney is wether I need to bring a dildo of my own to beat him with or can I borrow yours

We also pretend to be a Mormon couple on occasion you know "

On occasion. And it wasn't my dildo

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

We also pretend to be a Mormon couple on occasion you know "
... Oh yeah, who wears the underpants?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

On occasion. And it wasn't my dildo

"
...

You mean you beat a man with his own dildo..... That's just cruel

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

On occasion. And it wasn't my dildo

...

You mean you beat a man with his own dildo..... That's just cruel

It was actually a vibrator.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

On occasion. And it wasn't my dildo

...

You mean you beat a man with his own dildo..... That's just cruel

It was actually a vibrator. "
.

Sshhh quite now,i want to keep this mental image.... Ohhhh yeah, that's good

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

What really matters to me, is wether aircraft have been advanced faster through NASA government funded technology or slower than what the private sector could have done.

I think the fact is the private sector would still have you flying on bi-planes if the choice was spend 40 trillion on research to gain a massive advantage on your competition in 30 years time?.

In reality it comes down to making reasonable profit, if there making that there usually pretty happy and technological advancement goes on the back burner.

And yet Airbus have arguably made more key developments in airliner design than have Boeing and they do not benefit from NASA research or indeed State Subsidies.

I think severe depressions / recessions are exceptional reasons for Government intervention as National Security issues come into play. As for FDR's 'new Deal' It was the UK purchases in 1940 to'42 that really kicked US industry back into life. I have seen estimates that WWII before the US entered added some 60% to US GDP. Far more than did the 'New Deal' in the '30s.

I hasten to add that isn't a proposal to go to war to increase GDP ...

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Five will get you ten.... When you look behind Airbus i reckon you'll find big subsidies,i say that without looking but just in the knowledge that no company could compete with boeing and it's huge subsidies without being subsidised itself?.

They don't call them the "spoils of war" for nothing.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

What really matters to me, is wether aircraft have been advanced faster through NASA government funded technology or slower than what the private sector could have done.

I think the fact is the private sector would still have you flying on bi-planes if the choice was spend 40 trillion on research to gain a massive advantage on your competition in 30 years time?.

In reality it comes down to making reasonable profit, if there making that there usually pretty happy and technological advancement goes on the back burner.

And yet Airbus have arguably made more key developments in airliner design than have Boeing and they do not benefit from NASA research or indeed State Subsidies.

I hasten to add that isn't a proposal to go to war to increase GDP ...

I think you'll find there's a WTO ruling that confirms Airbus also have, what are effectively, state subsidies.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" I think you'll find there's a WTO ruling that confirms Airbus also have, what are effectively, state subsidies."

Actually the WTO found quite the opposite. It was Boeing made the allegations (in 2005) and after a big investigation "on 12 March 2012 the appellate body of the WTO released its findings confirming the illegality of subsidies to Boeing whilst confirming the legality of repayable loans made to Airbus. The WTO stated that Boeing had received at least $5.3 billion in illegal cash subsidies at an estimated cost to Airbus of $45 billion"

Boeing were particularly criticised for the direct benefits the 787 team got from NASA.

And it rumbles on: In April last year the WTO was investigating the largest state subsidy ever when Washington State gave Boeing some £8.7 Bn over 40 years to build the new 777X aircraft there.

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds487_e.htm

...and don't get me started on how Airbus were robbed of the tanker contract they won with the USAF in 2008...

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Trump must have the support of a huge part of his party for him to win the nomination? I know little about American politics so happy to be educated..

But you cannot just dismiss his "message"

Like people dismissed Farage and his "message". Look what happens..

Maybe lots of Americans are fed up with what is currently happening. Just like many British were fed up with the status quo and votes in the referendum showed that. I think they both similar in many ways x

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Trump must have the support of a huge part of his party for him to win the nomination? I know little about American politics so happy to be educated..

But you cannot just dismiss his "message"

Like people dismissed Farage and his "message". Look what happens..

Sadly, I think you're right.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Trump must have the support of a huge part of his party for him to win the nomination? I know little about American politics so happy to be educated..

But you cannot just dismiss his "message"

Like people dismissed Farage and his "message". Look what happens..

Sadly, I think you're right."

Why sadly?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Trump must have the support of a huge part of his party for him to win the nomination? I know little about American politics so happy to be educated..

But you cannot just dismiss his "message"

Like people dismissed Farage and his "message". Look what happens..

It also helps that he's running against someone entirely devoid of talent, allergic to the truth and from one of America's most elite / corrupt families.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Trump must have the support of a huge part of his party for him to win the nomination? I know little about American politics so happy to be educated..

But you cannot just dismiss his "message"

Like people dismissed Farage and his "message". Look what happens..

It also helps that he's running against someone entirely devoid of talent, allergic to the truth and from one of America's most elite / corrupt families. "

Maybe he is.

But I hate the fact that people, whatever their own thoughts or beliefs, are dismissed. Trump must stand for many people. Just like Farage. Or Corbyn.

The problem comes when people's concerns are dismissed. It encourages extremes in many cases x

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Trump must have the support of a huge part of his party for him to win the nomination? I know little about American politics so happy to be educated..

But you cannot just dismiss his "message"

Like people dismissed Farage and his "message". Look what happens..

It also helps that he's running against someone entirely devoid of talent, allergic to the truth and from one of America's most elite / corrupt families.

Maybe he is.

But I hate the fact that people, whatever their own thoughts or beliefs, are dismissed. Trump must stand for many people. Just like Farage. Or Corbyn.

The problem comes when people's concerns are dismissed. It encourages extremes in many cases x

But it's not a proportional representation system (thankfully) so "standing for many people" isn't the pass mark. You need to stand for the majority of people.

In my opinion, the biggest challenge for politicians is to save certain groups of people from themselves and politely explain to them that their ideas are stupid, without making them feel dismissed.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Trump must have the support of a huge part of his party for him to win the nomination? I know little about American politics so happy to be educated..

But you cannot just dismiss his "message"

Like people dismissed Farage and his "message". Look what happens..

It also helps that he's running against someone entirely devoid of talent, allergic to the truth and from one of America's most elite / corrupt families.

Maybe he is.

But I hate the fact that people, whatever their own thoughts or beliefs, are dismissed. Trump must stand for many people. Just like Farage. Or Corbyn.

The problem comes when people's concerns are dismissed. It encourages extremes in many cases x

But it's not a proportional representation system (thankfully) so "standing for many people" isn't the pass mark. You need to stand for the majority of people.

In my opinion, the biggest challenge for politicians is to save certain groups of people from themselves and politely explain to them that their ideas are stupid, without making them feel dismissed. "

Why certain groups?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Trump must have the support of a huge part of his party for him to win the nomination? I know little about American politics so happy to be educated..

But you cannot just dismiss his "message"

Like people dismissed Farage and his "message". Look what happens..

It also helps that he's running against someone entirely devoid of talent, allergic to the truth and from one of America's most elite / corrupt families.

Maybe he is.

But I hate the fact that people, whatever their own thoughts or beliefs, are dismissed. Trump must stand for many people. Just like Farage. Or Corbyn.

The problem comes when people's concerns are dismissed. It encourages extremes in many cases x

But it's not a proportional representation system (thankfully) so "standing for many people" isn't the pass mark. You need to stand for the majority of people.

In my opinion, the biggest challenge for politicians is to save certain groups of people from themselves and politely explain to them that their ideas are stupid, without making them feel dismissed.

Why certain groups? "

Because stupid people tend to cluster

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Trump must have the support of a huge part of his party for him to win the nomination? I know little about American politics so happy to be educated..

But you cannot just dismiss his "message"

Like people dismissed Farage and his "message". Look what happens..

It also helps that he's running against someone entirely devoid of talent, allergic to the truth and from one of America's most elite / corrupt families.

Maybe he is.

But I hate the fact that people, whatever their own thoughts or beliefs, are dismissed. Trump must stand for many people. Just like Farage. Or Corbyn.

The problem comes when people's concerns are dismissed. It encourages extremes in many cases x

But it's not a proportional representation system (thankfully) so "standing for many people" isn't the pass mark. You need to stand for the majority of people.

In my opinion, the biggest challenge for politicians is to save certain groups of people from themselves and politely explain to them that their ideas are stupid, without making them feel dismissed.

Why certain groups?

Because stupid people tend to cluster"

Your opinion of stupid people

Maybe politicians should try and understand "stupid"people.

After all, I'm stupid from those who voted remain.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Trump must have the support of a huge part of his party for him to win the nomination? I know little about American politics so happy to be educated..

But you cannot just dismiss his "message"

Like people dismissed Farage and his "message". Look what happens..

It also helps that he's running against someone entirely devoid of talent, allergic to the truth and from one of America's most elite / corrupt families.

Maybe he is.

But I hate the fact that people, whatever their own thoughts or beliefs, are dismissed. Trump must stand for many people. Just like Farage. Or Corbyn.

The problem comes when people's concerns are dismissed. It encourages extremes in many cases x

But it's not a proportional representation system (thankfully) so "standing for many people" isn't the pass mark. You need to stand for the majority of people.

In my opinion, the biggest challenge for politicians is to save certain groups of people from themselves and politely explain to them that their ideas are stupid, without making them feel dismissed.

Why certain groups?

Because stupid people tend to cluster

Your opinion of stupid people

Maybe politicians should try and understand "stupid"people.

After all, I'm stupid from those who voted remain. "

I've never said Brexiters were stupid and that's not my opinion. I did vote remain.

I don't think a lack of understanding of stupid people is the problem. It's easy to understand why people want to believe in easy solutions to complex problems.

What's confusing is why certain groups of people refuse to learn from history and insist on repeating the mistakes of the past.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Trump must have the support of a huge part of his party for him to win the nomination? I know little about American politics so happy to be educated..

But you cannot just dismiss his "message"

Like people dismissed Farage and his "message". Look what happens..

It also helps that he's running against someone entirely devoid of talent, allergic to the truth and from one of America's most elite / corrupt families.

Maybe he is.

But I hate the fact that people, whatever their own thoughts or beliefs, are dismissed. Trump must stand for many people. Just like Farage. Or Corbyn.

The problem comes when people's concerns are dismissed. It encourages extremes in many cases x

But it's not a proportional representation system (thankfully) so "standing for many people" isn't the pass mark. You need to stand for the majority of people.

In my opinion, the biggest challenge for politicians is to save certain groups of people from themselves and politely explain to them that their ideas are stupid, without making them feel dismissed.

Why certain groups?

Because stupid people tend to cluster

Your opinion of stupid people

Maybe politicians should try and understand "stupid"people.

After all, I'm stupid from those who voted remain.

I've never said Brexiters were stupid and that's not my opinion. I did vote remain.

I don't think a lack of understanding of stupid people is the problem. It's easy to understand why people want to believe in easy solutions to complex problems.

What's confusing is why certain groups of people refuse to learn from history and insist on repeating the mistakes of the past. "

I didn't say you thought Brexit voters were stupid.

My point is that people differ in their wants,needs and perceptions. People may be ignorant but not stupid. Everyone has different perspectives and experiences which form their"stupid" opinions.

What I am saying is that politicians shoukd take the time to listen and understand people. And not dismiss what they are being told x

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Trump must have the support of a huge part of his party for him to win the nomination? I know little about American politics so happy to be educated..

But you cannot just dismiss his "message"

Like people dismissed Farage and his "message". Look what happens..

It also helps that he's running against someone entirely devoid of talent, allergic to the truth and from one of America's most elite / corrupt families.

Maybe he is.

But I hate the fact that people, whatever their own thoughts or beliefs, are dismissed. Trump must stand for many people. Just like Farage. Or Corbyn.

The problem comes when people's concerns are dismissed. It encourages extremes in many cases x

But it's not a proportional representation system (thankfully) so "standing for many people" isn't the pass mark. You need to stand for the majority of people.

In my opinion, the biggest challenge for politicians is to save certain groups of people from themselves and politely explain to them that their ideas are stupid, without making them feel dismissed.

Why certain groups?

Because stupid people tend to cluster

Your opinion of stupid people

Maybe politicians should try and understand "stupid"people.

After all, I'm stupid from those who voted remain.

I've never said Brexiters were stupid and that's not my opinion. I did vote remain.

I don't think a lack of understanding of stupid people is the problem. It's easy to understand why people want to believe in easy solutions to complex problems.

What's confusing is why certain groups of people refuse to learn from history and insist on repeating the mistakes of the past.

I didn't say you thought Brexit voters were stupid.

My point is that people differ in their wants,needs and perceptions. People may be ignorant but not stupid. Everyone has different perspectives and experiences which form their"stupid" opinions.

What I am saying is that politicians shoukd take the time to listen and understand people. And not dismiss what they are being told x"

At the end of the day, we have about 6,000 years of written human history that we can use to learn about what does and doesn't work well. There are very few truly original ideas now.

Maybe politicians should make people feel important by listening to their views, but if those views are already disproven then that doesn't really advance the goals of our society to just endlessly debate things.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Trump must have the support of a huge part of his party for him to win the nomination? I know little about American politics so happy to be educated..

But you cannot just dismiss his "message"

Like people dismissed Farage and his "message". Look what happens..

It also helps that he's running against someone entirely devoid of talent, allergic to the truth and from one of America's most elite / corrupt families.

Maybe he is.

But I hate the fact that people, whatever their own thoughts or beliefs, are dismissed. Trump must stand for many people. Just like Farage. Or Corbyn.

The problem comes when people's concerns are dismissed. It encourages extremes in many cases x

But it's not a proportional representation system (thankfully) so "standing for many people" isn't the pass mark. You need to stand for the majority of people.

In my opinion, the biggest challenge for politicians is to save certain groups of people from themselves and politely explain to them that their ideas are stupid, without making them feel dismissed.

Why certain groups?

Because stupid people tend to cluster

Your opinion of stupid people

Maybe politicians should try and understand "stupid"people.

After all, I'm stupid from those who voted remain.

I've never said Brexiters were stupid and that's not my opinion. I did vote remain.

I don't think a lack of understanding of stupid people is the problem. It's easy to understand why people want to believe in easy solutions to complex problems.

What's confusing is why certain groups of people refuse to learn from history and insist on repeating the mistakes of the past.

I didn't say you thought Brexit voters were stupid.

My point is that people differ in their wants,needs and perceptions. People may be ignorant but not stupid. Everyone has different perspectives and experiences which form their"stupid" opinions.

What I am saying is that politicians shoukd take the time to listen and understand people. And not dismiss what they are being told x

At the end of the day, we have about 6,000 years of written human history that we can use to learn about what does and doesn't work well. There are very few truly original ideas now.

So who are decides these goals of society then?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

At the end of the day, we have about 6,000 years of written human history that we can use to learn about what does and doesn't work well. There are very few truly original ideas now.

So who are decides these goals of society then?"

Voters in a democracy...

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

At the end of the day, we have about 6,000 years of written human history that we can use to learn about what does and doesn't work well. There are very few truly original ideas now.

So who are decides these goals of society then?

Voters in a democracy... "

Like the recent referendum?

The one that those "stupid" Farage followers voted for?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

At the end of the day, we have about 6,000 years of written human history that we can use to learn about what does and doesn't work well. There are very few truly original ideas now.

So who are decides these goals of society then?

Voters in a democracy...

Like the recent referendum?

The one that those "stupid" Farage followers voted for?"

Again, I don't agree Brexiters are stupid so I'm confused why you're using that as your point.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

At the end of the day, we have about 6,000 years of written human history that we can use to learn about what does and doesn't work well. There are very few truly original ideas now.

So who are decides these goals of society then?

Voters in a democracy...

Like the recent referendum?

The one that those "stupid" Farage followers voted for?

Again, I don't agree Brexiters are stupid so I'm confused why you're using that as your point. "

Maybe because you say that politicians shoukd make people feel important by listening to their views but imply that they know better?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

At the end of the day, we have about 6,000 years of written human history that we can use to learn about what does and doesn't work well. There are very few truly original ideas now.

So who are decides these goals of society then?

Voters in a democracy...

Like the recent referendum?

The one that those "stupid" Farage followers voted for?

Again, I don't agree Brexiters are stupid so I'm confused why you're using that as your point.

Maybe because you say that politicians shoukd make people feel important by listening to their views but imply that they know better?

It's their job to know better...

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Trump must have the support of a huge part of his party for him to win the nomination? I know little about American politics so happy to be educated..

But you cannot just dismiss his "message"

Like people dismissed Farage and his "message". Look what happens..

It also helps that he's running against someone entirely devoid of talent, allergic to the truth and from one of America's most elite / corrupt families.

Maybe he is.

But I hate the fact that people, whatever their own thoughts or beliefs, are dismissed. Trump must stand for many people. Just like Farage. Or Corbyn.

The problem comes when people's concerns are dismissed. It encourages extremes in many cases x

But it's not a proportional representation system (thankfully) so "standing for many people" isn't the pass mark. You need to stand for the majority of people.

In my opinion, the biggest challenge for politicians is to save certain groups of people from themselves and politely explain to them that their ideas are stupid, without making them feel dismissed.

Why certain groups?

Because stupid people tend to cluster

Your opinion of stupid people

Maybe politicians should try and understand "stupid"people.

After all, I'm stupid from those who voted remain.

I've never said Brexiters were stupid and that's not my opinion. I did vote remain.

I don't think a lack of understanding of stupid people is the problem. It's easy to understand why people want to believe in easy solutions to complex problems.

What's confusing is why certain groups of people refuse to learn from history and insist on repeating the mistakes of the past.

I didn't say you thought Brexit voters were stupid.

My point is that people differ in their wants,needs and perceptions. People may be ignorant but not stupid. Everyone has different perspectives and experiences which form their"stupid" opinions.

What I am saying is that politicians shoukd take the time to listen and understand people. And not dismiss what they are being told x

At the end of the day, we have about 6,000 years of written human history that we can use to learn about what does and doesn't work well. There are very few truly original ideas now.

As in this post.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

At the end of the day, we have about 6,000 years of written human history that we can use to learn about what does and doesn't work well. There are very few truly original ideas now.

So who are decides these goals of society then?

Voters in a democracy...

Like the recent referendum?

The one that those "stupid" Farage followers voted for?

Again, I don't agree Brexiters are stupid so I'm confused why you're using that as your point.

Maybe because you say that politicians shoukd make people feel important by listening to their views but imply that they know better?

It's their job to know better... "

More fool the ignorant stupid people tHat vote them in! I have no sympathy there x

It's no excuse not to listen to the electorate x

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Trump must have the support of a huge part of his party for him to win the nomination? I know little about American politics so happy to be educated..

But you cannot just dismiss his "message"

Like people dismissed Farage and his "message". Look what happens..

It also helps that he's running against someone entirely devoid of talent, allergic to the truth and from one of America's most elite / corrupt families.

Maybe he is.

But I hate the fact that people, whatever their own thoughts or beliefs, are dismissed. Trump must stand for many people. Just like Farage. Or Corbyn.

The problem comes when people's concerns are dismissed. It encourages extremes in many cases x

But it's not a proportional representation system (thankfully) so "standing for many people" isn't the pass mark. You need to stand for the majority of people.

In my opinion, the biggest challenge for politicians is to save certain groups of people from themselves and politely explain to them that their ideas are stupid, without making them feel dismissed.

Why certain groups?

Because stupid people tend to cluster

Your opinion of stupid people

Maybe politicians should try and understand "stupid"people.

After all, I'm stupid from those who voted remain.

I've never said Brexiters were stupid and that's not my opinion. I did vote remain.

I don't think a lack of understanding of stupid people is the problem. It's easy to understand why people want to believe in easy solutions to complex problems.

What's confusing is why certain groups of people refuse to learn from history and insist on repeating the mistakes of the past.

I didn't say you thought Brexit voters were stupid.

My point is that people differ in their wants,needs and perceptions. People may be ignorant but not stupid. Everyone has different perspectives and experiences which form their"stupid" opinions.

What I am saying is that politicians shoukd take the time to listen and understand people. And not dismiss what they are being told x

At the end of the day, we have about 6,000 years of written human history that we can use to learn about what does and doesn't work well. There are very few truly original ideas now.

As in this post.

It's not a debate. A debate is two opposing point of views contesting their merits. You're just asking me endless questions about my views, without putting forward your own and then telling me its going on too long.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Trump must have the support of a huge part of his party for him to win the nomination? I know little about American politics so happy to be educated..

But you cannot just dismiss his "message"

Like people dismissed Farage and his "message". Look what happens..

It also helps that he's running against someone entirely devoid of talent, allergic to the truth and from one of America's most elite / corrupt families.

Maybe he is.

But I hate the fact that people, whatever their own thoughts or beliefs, are dismissed. Trump must stand for many people. Just like Farage. Or Corbyn.

The problem comes when people's concerns are dismissed. It encourages extremes in many cases x

But it's not a proportional representation system (thankfully) so "standing for many people" isn't the pass mark. You need to stand for the majority of people.

In my opinion, the biggest challenge for politicians is to save certain groups of people from themselves and politely explain to them that their ideas are stupid, without making them feel dismissed.

Why certain groups?

Because stupid people tend to cluster

Your opinion of stupid people

Maybe politicians should try and understand "stupid"people.

After all, I'm stupid from those who voted remain.

I've never said Brexiters were stupid and that's not my opinion. I did vote remain.

I don't think a lack of understanding of stupid people is the problem. It's easy to understand why people want to believe in easy solutions to complex problems.

What's confusing is why certain groups of people refuse to learn from history and insist on repeating the mistakes of the past.

I didn't say you thought Brexit voters were stupid.

My point is that people differ in their wants,needs and perceptions. People may be ignorant but not stupid. Everyone has different perspectives and experiences which form their"stupid" opinions.

What I am saying is that politicians shoukd take the time to listen and understand people. And not dismiss what they are being told x

At the end of the day, we have about 6,000 years of written human history that we can use to learn about what does and doesn't work well. There are very few truly original ideas now.

As in this post.

Really?

I'm responding to comments you make about my posts. And using this as an example.

I like debate. Its healthy to disagree.

But I don't like people's opinions being dismissed as "stupid" whether I agree or not.

Which was my original point x

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

At the end of the day, we have about 6,000 years of written human history that we can use to learn about what does and doesn't work well. There are very few truly original ideas now.

As in this post.

Really?

I'm responding to comments you make about my posts. And using this as an example.

I like debate. Its healthy to disagree.

But I don't like people's opinions being dismissed as "stupid" whether I agree or not.

Which was my original point x"

So you don't think there are any stupid opinions?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

At the end of the day, we have about 6,000 years of written human history that we can use to learn about what does and doesn't work well. There are very few truly original ideas now.

As in this post.

Really?

I'm responding to comments you make about my posts. And using this as an example.

I like debate. Its healthy to disagree.

But I don't like people's opinions being dismissed as "stupid" whether I agree or not.

Which was my original point x

So you don't think there are any stupid opinions? "

No.

Just opinions I don't agree with x

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

At the end of the day, we have about 6,000 years of written human history that we can use to learn about what does and doesn't work well. There are very few truly original ideas now.

As in this post.

Really?

I'm responding to comments you make about my posts. And using this as an example.

I like debate. Its healthy to disagree.

But I don't like people's opinions being dismissed as "stupid" whether I agree or not.

Which was my original point x

So you don't think there are any stupid opinions?

No.

Just opinions I don't agree with x

So we have 2 opposition theories like creationism and evolution, they can't both be true. We put them both to scientific testing and overwhelmingly the results favour evolution. People choose to ignore the science, can't refute the facts and stubbornly stick to their preconceived ideas that have no basis in logic.

But you think we should continue to listen and pay respect to their opinion indefinitely rather than dismiss it as stupid?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

At the end of the day, we have about 6,000 years of written human history that we can use to learn about what does and doesn't work well. There are very few truly original ideas now.

As in this post.

Really?

I'm responding to comments you make about my posts. And using this as an example.

I like debate. Its healthy to disagree.

But I don't like people's opinions being dismissed as "stupid" whether I agree or not.

Which was my original point x

So you don't think there are any stupid opinions?

No.

Just opinions I don't agree with x

But you think we should continue to listen and pay respect to their opinion indefinitely rather than dismiss it as stupid? "

We aren't debating science here though

We are discussing politics.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

At the end of the day, we have about 6,000 years of written human history that we can use to learn about what does and doesn't work well. There are very few truly original ideas now.

As in this post.

Really?

I'm responding to comments you make about my posts. And using this as an example.

I like debate. Its healthy to disagree.

But I don't like people's opinions being dismissed as "stupid" whether I agree or not.

Which was my original point x

So you don't think there are any stupid opinions?

No.

Just opinions I don't agree with x

But you think we should continue to listen and pay respect to their opinion indefinitely rather than dismiss it as stupid?

We aren't debating science here though

We are discussing politics. "

I thought we were discussing whether any opinions are stupid...

Is creationism a stupid opinion or not?

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

At the end of the day, we have about 6,000 years of written human history that we can use to learn about what does and doesn't work well. There are very few truly original ideas now.

As in this post.

Really?

I'm responding to comments you make about my posts. And using this as an example.

I like debate. Its healthy to disagree.

But I don't like people's opinions being dismissed as "stupid" whether I agree or not.

Which was my original point x

So you don't think there are any stupid opinions?

No.

Just opinions I don't agree with x

But you think we should continue to listen and pay respect to their opinion indefinitely rather than dismiss it as stupid?

We aren't debating science here though

We are discussing politics.

I thought we were discussing whether any opinions are stupid...

Is creationism a stupid opinion or not? "

We are debating political opinions hence being on the political forum

Not a scientific or religious forum.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

At the end of the day, we have about 6,000 years of written human history that we can use to learn about what does and doesn't work well. There are very few truly original ideas now.

As in this post.

Really?

I'm responding to comments you make about my posts. And using this as an example.

I like debate. Its healthy to disagree.

But I don't like people's opinions being dismissed as "stupid" whether I agree or not.

Which was my original point x

So you don't think there are any stupid opinions?

No.

Just opinions I don't agree with x

But you think we should continue to listen and pay respect to their opinion indefinitely rather than dismiss it as stupid?

We aren't debating science here though

We are discussing politics.

I thought we were discussing whether any opinions are stupid...

Is creationism a stupid opinion or not?

We are debating political opinions hence being on the political forum

Not a scientific or religious forum.

I'll take that as a yes then. Science and Arts are a spectrum rather than two mutually exclusive categories. Nothing is 100% science (yet), even physics, and nothing is 100% art. There is an element of science to art, so to speak. Even politics has elements that can objectively be proven true or false, which is why some opinions to the contrary are, like creationism, stupid.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

The one thing I've learnt is you can bring logic to people but you can't make them think logically!.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The one thing I've learnt is you can bring logic to people but you can't make them think logically!.

It's like bringing a knife to a gun fight around here

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The one thing I've learnt is you can bring logic to people but you can't make them think logically!.

This is true. But I think this very concept should be better understood by people who like to make logical arguments. I always think that the flaw with so many intelligent people is that they don't speak to their audience. Much of the electorate, sadly in my opinion, doesn't think logically, they think emotionally. They are largely ignored, often mocked, by those who make rational, logical arguments. This is where Trump excels.

So, is it unfortunate that they think this way? Yeah. But it's unfortunate that those with good ideas and intelligent, informed opinions can't think past their own understanding to speak to them, as well.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The one thing I've learnt is you can bring logic to people but you can't make them think logically!.

There's a cultural bias in your response though. You come from (and live in) a culture that has, what Hofstede would call, a 'low uncertainty avoidance' culture. 46/100 and 35/100 respectively.

These cultures believe what you said, as if I may paraphrase 'those with good ideas should simplify them'. If you were Japanese (92/100), or to a lesser extent German (65/100), then you would probably think that 'people should educate themselves and aspire to understand complex ideas'.

I'm from the Anglo-Saxon part of England and hence my tastes are a bit more Deutsch.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The one thing I've learnt is you can bring logic to people but you can't make them think logically!.

There's a cultural bias in your response though. You come from (and live in) a culture that has, what Hofstede would call, a 'low uncertainty avoidance' culture. 46/100 and 35/100 respectively.

I'm from the Anglo-Saxon part of England and hence my tastes are a bit more Deutsch. "

Well, then I guess it makes sense to apply Japanese and German thought processes to political discussions about American (Trump) and British (Farage) politics?

Don't get me wrong, I prefer rational argument and logical discussion, but many a politician in the US has lost for not being able to speak to the majority of voters...

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The one thing I've learnt is you can bring logic to people but you can't make them think logically!.

There's a cultural bias in your response though. You come from (and live in) a culture that has, what Hofstede would call, a 'low uncertainty avoidance' culture. 46/100 and 35/100 respectively.

I'm from the Anglo-Saxon part of England and hence my tastes are a bit more Deutsch.

Well, then I guess it makes sense to apply Japanese and German thought processes to political discussions about American (Trump) and British (Farage) politics?

Don't get me wrong, I prefer rational argument and logical discussion, but many a politician in the US has lost for not being able to speak to the majority of voters..."

OK, I misunderstood where you were aiming the original point and never like to miss an opportunity to bring Hofstede into the discussion. Although, when it comes to European politics, I would say that ze Germans have been more successful and outmaneuvered us since that event that we do not speak of.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The one thing I've learnt is you can bring logic to people but you can't make them think logically!.

There's a cultural bias in your response though. You come from (and live in) a culture that has, what Hofstede would call, a 'low uncertainty avoidance' culture. 46/100 and 35/100 respectively.

I'm from the Anglo-Saxon part of England and hence my tastes are a bit more Deutsch.

Well, then I guess it makes sense to apply Japanese and German thought processes to political discussions about American (Trump) and British (Farage) politics?

Don't get me wrong, I prefer rational argument and logical discussion, but many a politician in the US has lost for not being able to speak to the majority of voters...

Fair point

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By *entaur_UKMan over a year ago

Cannock

"What a nightmare tag team for liberals

I thought it was a good intervention speech by Farage. I watched an interview with Farage on Fox news after the speech, Farage said he didn't get paid a penny from Trump for it. Why did he do it then? Well his motivation was payback for Obama who came over here and joined Cameron on a stage and told us all to vote Remain. Now Obama is finding out payback is a bitch, and Trump has made a very shrewd move playing on the success of Brexit, which has gone down well with many Americans.

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"What a nightmare tag team for liberals

Exactly. Farage didn't actually endorse Trump or say how Americans should vote. And then turned that point against Obama and Clinton. As you say Payback is a bitch. Clinton showed it hurt by making some pretty dreadful comments about Farage but I doubt a rats arse was given.

Some good reporting by the BBC actually as they showed how relevant his speech was to some Americans:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37182076

Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote or View forums list

» Add a new message to this topic