danst96
Established Member
Yeh this site is becoming a political argument space. Kind of sad. Need to try avoid these threads but keep getting sucked in which is my fault.
President Elect's 'top team'
- Thread starter Chris152
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Hypnotic Chimera
Directional Consultant Extraordinaire
You obviously didn't take on board what I wrote. Any of it. I understand your POV and that is why it is your POV that is being criticised - and not you - I'm categorically not "having a go at you" - instead I'm establishing that your POV is often worthy of either fair and equitable criticism or sometimes even ridicule, because it often cannot be substantiated, more often than not flies in the face of observable reality and is often obviously based upon nothing other that your clearly biased feelies (and perhaps repetition of echo-chamber media).
If you feel I am having a go at you, then you are doubly wrong. Once wrong for your demonstrably untrue POV and once for your crying about me picking on "tony" - which is not what is happening - I'm not even picking on "tony's opinion" - observing that an opinion flies in the face of demonstrable reality is not picking on it...
So to answer your question (if it wasn't rhetorical?), I absolutely do get it that you don't like your opinion being taken apart with facts and reality. But if that's all it takes to upset tony, then perhaps avoiding posting any opinion which can be taken apart with facts and reality would be a sensible move? ( <- I've set a pretty big and obvious bear-trap for you in saying that - let's see if you fall in?)
Another word to the wise would be - if you have been prolifically, obsessively and aggressively uber-critical of a particular politician yourself (and you have - 4-page list of your insults and attacks here) it might be advisable to refrain from suggesting that people should refrain from criticising another politician. Particularly in a thread which was set up to discuss that politician. Once again, your complete lack of any self awareness (or humility in the face of fair observations) is simply staggering. I would suggest that a 4 page list of your posts attacking one person is indeed obsessive, in direct contradiction to your claim above! Anyway, just a thought. Take it or leave it, buddy!
Hypnotic Chimera
Directional Consultant Extraordinaire
Fact check. This is 100% untrue.
Yes. I do. And I'm sad for you.
Although what you appear to label as "opinion" is often not an "opinion" and can be directly refuted through simple counting. See fact check above.
Nobody is denigrating you. There is no name calling or personal insult. There is, however, an enormous body of factual evidence that directly refutes what you have written.
Factual and substantiated evidence can never be labelled as "bluster".
False equivalence. "Running a business" does not necessarily imbue the individual with factual or even relevant information in discussions.
LOL. This is a logical fallacy. A Straw Man argument layered onto Ad Hominem. What you are trying to say here is that you actively desire to remove individuals from a discussion depending on what job they do. Nothing short of attempting to engineer an echo chamber that you believe would be more likely, in your view, to reflect your own views.
Nobody can afford to fall into a society in which a person's view is either accepted or rejected based solely on the grounds of which job they do. Not even you!
Hayek was also a proponent of government not intervening in markets when they fail and not intervening in the economy during crisis, instead preferring the notion that markets and economies should sort themselves out.
Shall we adopt that notion to the water companies and allow them to charge higher prices so that they can continue to extract high profit? Shall we also adopt that notion with the energy market and allow companies to continue to increase prices while also withdrawing ALL Winter Fuel Allowance?
As you can see, Cherry Picking is also another logical fallacy which can easily be discerned and therefore roundly criticised.
I actually enjoy reading them
RobinBHM
Established Member
President elects team isnt lasting too well
Matt Gaetz drops bid to serve as Trump's attorney general over teen sex and drugs investigation
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-consideration-attorney-general/76480095007/
Matt Gaetz drops bid to serve as Trump's attorney general over teen sex and drugs investigation
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-consideration-attorney-general/76480095007/
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
I know you will defend Labour to the hilt - but bluntly they lied and fed the country a diet of unadulterated B / S in pursuit of electoral success.
We could debate issues endlessly and possibly never reach agreement - "freebies" (at the very least poor judgement), winter fuel allowance (ill-conceived), tax expectations (remember "read my lips"), effective immigration control (seemingly still non-existent), farmers and inheritance tax (no issue with taxing tax dodgers),etc etc.
Labour had years to plan their election victory, and 6 months to examine the books and question officials. They insisted they would replace chaos with economic discipline etc, yet failed to ask about pay rises embedded in strike ridden industries in OBR forecasts. Incompetent, economical with the truth or liars - take your pick.
They held out hope they would be far better than the previous incumbents - with some justification persuaded many to vote their way. Massively helped by Reform splitting residual Tory loyalties.
This is not a criticism of Labour - politicians without power are impotent - their pursuit of power at any cost or compromise is understandable - I am sure the Tories will do likewise in 2029!!
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
Apparently after his meetings with Republican senators. I.e. he's so toxic that it was clear that not enough of them would support his nomination so he's pulled out. Which is maybe what he should have done with the underage girls. Ahem. Allegedly.
Hypnotic Chimera
Directional Consultant Extraordinaire
Which they clearly did do - but when even the officials didn't know - because they had been unlawfully kept in the dark - the answer is that there was surprises that no amount of "due diligence" would have uncovered. (I've posted the quotation previously by the head of OBR attending the Select Committee = "under the normal rules and under the Act, they should have done" [ie Tory govt did not inform OBR of all planned expenditure] )
The pay rises were mostly NOT to do with strike action - for instance the Armed Forces got a 5% pay rise - and I don't know whether you are aware but Armed Forces are not legally allowed to strike...
Again, no amount of due diligence would have uncovered this, since the dishonest and corrupt Tories chose to hide that information. Most Pay Review Bodies had completed their work and had written their reports by the election - but the reports were deliberately hidden from parliament by the dishonest govt. The reports are for Govt eyes only until such times as the govt chooses to release them.
I guess the biggest mistake was to take the Tory govt at face value and trust that the money they had already allocated to fund pay rises was sufficient to cover the Pay Review Body's recommendations. (Which it ought to have been if we are to consider the outgoing govt as "fiscally responsible", and not down-right corrupt.)
Left with the choice to find the funding that was necessary to fund the Body's recommendations, or to chose to go against the recommendations - this was a dirty trap set by corrupt Tories - and much of the electorate, including you, it would appear, have swallowed the LIE that these were in some way "foreseeable" costs, when in fact they absolutely were not.
As has been noted - Trump gets to show he rewards loyalty and can pin it on others for not confirming him, even if everyone guessed it wouldn't happen.
