The EU debate - Part III

This is pretty much the way I feel.

And there is no way I could have voted for Clinton.
The woman is everything that's wrong with US politics. Do not come more corrupt and self serving than her.
That's not to say Trump will not help himself, but Hillary is evil.
Trump is just a ****ing joke.

 

I'm not sure that what you have written is how TTIP is intended.

 

I get people not voting for Hilary - although I don't think she's anything like the monster some make out. But voting for Trump? Fuxake, you have to be stupid to do that. Alright, stupid and desperate perhaps, and angry. But still stupid.

 

I love my dogs but they are unelectable and I wouldn't vote for them...
Unless the only alternative was Corbyn.

 

Worse than that, he's a supposed billionaire that inherited his wealth and invested badly.
He also discriminated against various people along the way, refused to pay people that worked for him and ripped people off left, right and centre.
His repeated intentional bankruptcies and tax dodging are probably the least damaging of his actions.

Trump's not just an example of the kind of arsehole that's been gaming the system, he's one of the worst.
He's spent his entire life ****ting on those below him and now those same people have elected him president.
That he's done it on the back of being an arrogant arsehole is the biggest irony.

 

You realise you are actually trying to debate with a bowl of custard here? Nothing ironic in his username, that is his intellectual level.

 

My point was that I've done nothing to suggest that I love Corbyn. I clearly don't.
That doesn't feed into some people's weird view of those that disagree with them though, so they ignore it.
If they can't hate on 'looney lefties' as one entity, then they don't know what to do.

 

She is dreadful mate.
Not only did she cover up her husbands...shall we say.....proclivities (and I do not mean Monica Lewinsky), she also had a hand in US agents being killed in Benghazi, has taken billions in bribes through her foundation from a-holes like Saudi families, and verbally abused a young disabled girl (referring to a well documented time when she was First Lady and Bill had arranged for some kids from a local special needs school to have an easter egg hunt on the lawn of the White House, and hadn't told Hillary, and she said to the Head of the Secret Service, and I quote "Get those ****ing ******s off of my lawn!")

 

I'll say it again, on this occasion (along with Brexit) I'm not sure it would really matter who the figure heads were. I genuinely believe it was more a vote against the way society is heading and the perceived injustices from our political and social elite. Angry yes, stupid no

 

True, but even then, he's still on the fringes of those 1%'ers..
Agreed, he does love a bankruptcy or 6!
But.. in saying that, he's got a few nice golf courses! The new one in Aberdeen, lovely!

 

Whilst claiming to the masses that this wealth will trickle down to them, via further investment and jobs.

 

This is a generic problem with all free trade agreements as for them to be 'properly free' they have to be pretty immune from Govt interference. That is why the EU single market has so many effects on national laws. There should be great benefits from free trade but there are bound to be winners and losers. Personally I think we should take the benefits and use them to protect the losers while having some sort of windfall tax on the winners. But it is very complicated and almost impossible to negotiate so I can see why others think it is either not worth doing or even damaging.

 

You believe that?

 

please log in to view this image

 

I quite like the analogy I heard: Air steward: Your choices for dinner are the chicken or the plate of **** covered with broken glass. Passenger: Umm that 's a hard choice - how is the chicken cooked?

 

Well documented? Wasn't this from some random person trying to sell a book?

 

What a random response. Nothing to do with what I've posted at all.
Quite typical of your utterly childish contributions to this thread, though.
It's like being insulted by a rather dull 12-year-old with a concussion.

 

Im prepared to give anyone a chance, even if they don't seem initially to have the same values as me.

 

Almost any US Secretary of State has made mistakes resulting in deaths of US personnel.
The Clinton Foundation is very well-meaning (its not uncommon for retiring politicians to do something similar) and I've no objection at all to scum giving money to charity in the wrong expectation of being able to buy influence. The problem here was the unusual circumstance that the ex-President's wife was in a position of influence but I've seen no good evidence that she acted improperly in practice.

 

It was written for the Kustards and God's cocks of this thread. The majority of people in the UK do not take any interest in politics. This is borne out by the high numbers that do not vote. I would hazard a guess, based on those I have met, that not more than 20% of the electorate checked our the pros and cons of leaving the EU leaving the rest to follow the lead of whichever media outlet they followed. I accept that people have opinions that differ from mine in varying degrees, but for them to just to regurgitate 'facts' from newspapers that have an obvious agenda, sometimes only having read a misleading headline, does seem stupid to me, and gives the impression that they cannot think for themselves.