Jump to content

Photo

Brexit lol


  • Please log in to reply
145 replies to this topic

#41 YVNG_CARL_YVNG

YVNG_CARL_YVNG
  • Members
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Die ewige Wacht
  • Glutsturm / Emberstorm
  • Posts: 1,065
  • Talents: Subtlety 1/1/2/1/0/1/.

Posted 29 June 2016 - 12:16 AM

Nigel Farage is the fucking man, I agree. Not a lot of politicians like him around. Could use more people like him.

It's time to add a portrait of him to the common sense conservative altar in my home. Do you think he should go on the left, or right, side of Donald Trump?


honestly, I have no idea what to make of this post. are you being sarcastic? are you being genuine? are you trying to show off some sort of superiority?

I despise farage, I despise UKIP and I think britain leaving the EU was a horrible choice, for both the brits and the remaining EU countries.

Because leaving EU = leaving NATO, right? Come on, that's crazy hyperbole. Nobody is advocating isolationism. People are fighting against a system designed to crush any resistance on the slow, but steady, path to the European superstate. I guarantee that both Britain and the United States will profit off of a trade deal within six months of a Conservative/UKIP coalition entering office, especially if Donald Trump becomes president. And if the European Union was more concerned with the interests of all Europeans instead of punishing ex member states, then they would follow suit, too.

The British people never got a chance to vote for the Maastricht Treaty to join the EU. They got more than what they bargained for when they joined the EEC in 1973. What we saw on June 23rd was the original voters of the EEC going out in droves to rectify their past mistakes.

And you know who's crying about this the most? The millennials who didn't even bother to show up to vote because of the rain. Like the traditional parent-child relationship, the parents will be doing what's right for the kids, even if they have to pull them out of the EU kicking and screaming.


I never even mentioned the NATO. If you think british isolationism is a hyperbole then I don't even know what to tell you. You are knowledgeable when it comes to history so are you just trying to troll me or something? As if it was anything "new" that Britain was isolationist.

Isolationist movements are spreading rapidly across entire Europe. What exactly is Poland doing? What about the Ukraine? Honestly, I cannot even call Poland a democratic country anymore. Not only that, but they're shutting themselves off more and more very year.

What are you referring to when you are talking about a European superstate?

What are you referring to when you say the EU "punishes" certain countries, when in actuality

Britain has had a special treatment, meaning they had to pay less than they usually would. It has been this way for decades, I really do hope you know that.

I will just ignore your general comment regarding "muh millenials", I don't think it's something worth replying to.

I'm kind of baffled to be honest, still unsure about whether you're being serious or not. I just hope at the bottom of my heart that the comment regarding Farage was a joke, because I actually thought it was pretty funny.

last paragraph is literally a meme


The people living in Crimea that I have talked to certainly do not think it's a meme......
  • 0

#42 FTRouslan

FTRouslan
  • Members
  • Blood Elfclass_name
  • US-Dawnbringer
  • Retaliation
  • Posts: 2,556
  • Talents: Frost

Posted 29 June 2016 - 12:26 AM

i posted a picture about how the candidates are the same thing and you thought it'd be a good response to suck trump's dick lmao. fuck it's so embarrassing to glorify a candidate in this political climate


Posted Image

Neither candidate are the same thing you low-information fuck. They are, effectively, polar opposites. Trump wants to preserve liberal democracy. Clinton wants to hand over control to an oligarchy of corporatists. Are you even paying attention? Stop polluting threads with this garbage.

You never offer anything meaningful to any thread where you regurgitate out-of-context /r/fullcommunism memes. You've been doing this for months. We get it. You want to seize the means of production. We get it. You're incapable of having a grounded discussion about politics. We get it. You don't know what you're talking about.


i don't mind killing threads on aj but i do mind people supporting policies that kill workers through exploitation :(

V/\



Total waste of time talking with a real life duelist.
  • 0
Nasty, brutish, and about 6'1".

Look at me. I can start and stop wars, at will. I can save or destroy the world. I can do anything I fucking want. Just now, I pissed near my toilet bowl because I fucking can.


#43 YVNG_CARL_YVNG

YVNG_CARL_YVNG
  • Members
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Die ewige Wacht
  • Glutsturm / Emberstorm
  • Posts: 1,065
  • Talents: Subtlety 1/1/2/1/0/1/.

Posted 29 June 2016 - 12:28 AM

Honestly, I'm fucking disgusted by the argument on the second page. Both of you are acting like fucking manchildren, throwing around ad hominems, talking almost exclusively in memes, purposefully missing someone elses point, making ridiculous generelizations, killing active discourse.

This has reached a point where it is just getting embarrassing. I won't pick sides, but when you niggers think "get a job" "lmao fucking liberals" "i mean i honestly can't imagine how much i'd have to hate myself to support this shit" "r/communism xD" are fucking arguments, then maybe you need to fuck off to /pol/ or a similiar shithole where people appreciate the lowest level of discourse.

I know both of you to be smart debaters, shit like this makes my blood boil. And don't even fucking start with some "it's just banter chill you sperg xD" bullshit, I couldn't care less.

Talking to both of you in skype clearly reveals you're capable of structuring a fucking sentence or formulating a coherent argument. Use your brain or it might deteriorate.
  • 0

#44 Breadstick

Breadstick
  • Moderators
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Arena Tournament 1
  • Coliseum 1
  • Posts: 11,734
  • Talents: Affliction

Posted 29 June 2016 - 12:29 AM

by your capitalist standards i'm a lot more successful than u irl so it's p awkward now on top of embarrassing since you actually think trump is your savior and any different than hillary
  • 0
s a d b o y s

#45 Breadstick

Breadstick
  • Moderators
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Arena Tournament 1
  • Coliseum 1
  • Posts: 11,734
  • Talents: Affliction

Posted 29 June 2016 - 12:31 AM

I couldn't care less.


same
  • 0
s a d b o y s

#46 Breadstick

Breadstick
  • Moderators
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Arena Tournament 1
  • Coliseum 1
  • Posts: 11,734
  • Talents: Affliction

Posted 29 June 2016 - 12:39 AM

same


honestly i really like this response but here's also another one i can't decide which i like more

Posted Image
  • 0
s a d b o y s

#47 YVNG_CARL_YVNG

YVNG_CARL_YVNG
  • Members
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Die ewige Wacht
  • Glutsturm / Emberstorm
  • Posts: 1,065
  • Talents: Subtlety 1/1/2/1/0/1/.

Posted 29 June 2016 - 12:49 AM

yeah this is getting really fucking pathetic
  • 0

#48 FTRouslan

FTRouslan
  • Members
  • Blood Elfclass_name
  • US-Dawnbringer
  • Retaliation
  • Posts: 2,556
  • Talents: Frost

Posted 29 June 2016 - 12:51 AM

honestly, I have no idea what to make of this post. are you being sarcastic? are you being genuine? are you trying to show off some sort of superiority?

I despise farage, I despise UKIP and I think britain leaving the EU was a horrible choice, for both the brits and the remaining EU countries.


I am 100% serious in my support for Nigel Farage and UKIP. And the destruction of EU can't happen sooner for the PIGS countries impoverished by disastrous EU policies. The European Union should have never extended beyond France, Germany, and the Low Countries. It should have never evolved beyond the Maastricht Treaty. And it should have never been allowed to be unaccountable to the people.

I never even mentioned the NATO.


Exactly! Remember this comment that you made?

world politics is all funny n shit until putin comes along and annexes your homeland while isolationist nation states just sit by and watch you get purged.


Leaving the European Union has nothing to do with leaving NATO, abandoning all intentions of trading, completely closing off borders, etc. This is why I don't understand where your fear of British isolationism comes from. How is asserting national sovereignty "isolationism"? Advocating for self-interest doesn't mean that mutually beneficial agreements can't be made with the consent of both parties.

Boris Johnson might be a different story. I don't particularly know him or like him. But a UKIP-lead United Kingdom, with Nigel Farage as PM, would certainly not be isolationist under the policies that Nigel Farage has advocated for decades.

What are you referring to when you are talking about a European superstate?


http://www.reuters.c...e-idUSKCN0ZC0BQ

http://static.pressp.../DokumentUE.pdf

States will no longer be able to field their own armies, decide their own fiscal policy, decide their own foreign policy, adopt their own national bank, etc. Terrifying document, especially given that the current structure of the European Union political system has little or no accountability to the people of Europe.

What are you referring to when you say the EU "punishes" certain countries, when in actuality


Stop it right there.

My comment was referring to European Union's response to Brexit.

Remember when President Obama threatened to move the United Kingdom to the "back of the queue", despite their century-long alliance? Are you paying attention to the harsh terms that the European Commission wants to impose on the United Kingdom for leaving, despite the possible negative effects on native German industries?

The European Union will begin to crumble if they don't impose harsh terms on the United Kingdom for leaving, which proves that it never had the interests of the British people, or really, the European people, at heart.

Britain has had a special treatment, meaning they had to pay less than they usually would. It has been this way for decades, I really do hope you know that.



"Special treatment"? You mean, special treatment for the financial industry by retaining the pound, right?

I'm sure the UK fishing industry didn't enjoy "special treatment" when they were denied access to their own fishing waters, so other EU countries could fish them. I'm sure the average working-class British worker didn't enjoy "special treatment" when their wages were pushed down thanks to unchecked immigration.

The working-class voters of the United Kingdom voted in their self-interest. Even British-minority districts, like Luton, voted overwhelmingly to remain. Many Remainers could do nothing to support their position except ruin the meaning of words like "racism", "xenophobia", etc. And nothing offered by the European Union is irreplaceable by a half-decent transition to independence, given the fact that the United Kingdom contributed more to the European Union than it received.

Already, the the stock markets are beginning to recover after the undeserved panic created by the upset, thanks to all of the bets hedged for Remain. The sky isn't falling. The world isn't about to end. And I think that the world will be better off with Brexit.

I will just ignore your general comment regarding "muh millenials", I don't think it's something worth replying to.


Just a thought I wanted to share, especially after seeing all of the arguments in favor of disenfranchising older people I've seen circulating in social media.


I'm kind of baffled to be honest, still unsure about whether you're being serious or not. I just hope at the bottom of my heart that the comment regarding Farage was a joke, because I actually thought it was pretty funny.



It's a joke. I don't actually have an altar. It would be nice, though.
  • 0
Nasty, brutish, and about 6'1".

Look at me. I can start and stop wars, at will. I can save or destroy the world. I can do anything I fucking want. Just now, I pissed near my toilet bowl because I fucking can.


#49 FTRouslan

FTRouslan
  • Members
  • Blood Elfclass_name
  • US-Dawnbringer
  • Retaliation
  • Posts: 2,556
  • Talents: Frost

Posted 29 June 2016 - 12:58 AM

Honestly, I'm fucking disgusted by the argument on the second page. Both of you are acting like fucking manchildren, throwing around ad hominems, talking almost exclusively in memes, purposefully missing someone elses point, making ridiculous generelizations, killing active discourse.

This has reached a point where it is just getting embarrassing. I won't pick sides, but when you niggers think "get a job" "lmao fucking liberals" "i mean i honestly can't imagine how much i'd have to hate myself to support this shit" "r/communism xD" are fucking arguments, then maybe you need to fuck off to /pol/ or a similiar shithole where people appreciate the lowest level of discourse.

I know both of you to be smart debaters, shit like this makes my blood boil. And don't even fucking start with some "it's just banter chill you sperg xD" bullshit, I couldn't care less.

Talking to both of you in skype clearly reveals you're capable of structuring a fucking sentence or formulating a coherent argument. Use your brain or it might deteriorate.


It wasn't an argument. After a certain point, I stopped trying to have a conversation because it's impossible to have one with somebody who can only discuss politics with /r/fullcommunism or /leftypol/ memes. Now isn't hyperbole. Go browse /r/fullcommunism and tell me I'm wrong.

How many more times is it possible to make a point about the policy differences between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, only to be greeted with an elementary understanding of the theory of surplus value, which is totally inapplicable to the topic?

It's a total waste of time, I agree with you.
  • 0
Nasty, brutish, and about 6'1".

Look at me. I can start and stop wars, at will. I can save or destroy the world. I can do anything I fucking want. Just now, I pissed near my toilet bowl because I fucking can.


#50 Breadstick

Breadstick
  • Moderators
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Arena Tournament 1
  • Coliseum 1
  • Posts: 11,734
  • Talents: Affliction

Posted 29 June 2016 - 12:59 AM

you responded to a picture of lays chips and thought i wanted to debate
  • 0
s a d b o y s

#51 FTRouslan

FTRouslan
  • Members
  • Blood Elfclass_name
  • US-Dawnbringer
  • Retaliation
  • Posts: 2,556
  • Talents: Frost

Posted 29 June 2016 - 01:06 AM

yeah you're here to masturbate and tell everybody how much of a socialist you are, not to debate. the picture was hardly even relevant, as always. same goddamn horseshit for months.

fuck off
  • 0
Nasty, brutish, and about 6'1".

Look at me. I can start and stop wars, at will. I can save or destroy the world. I can do anything I fucking want. Just now, I pissed near my toilet bowl because I fucking can.


#52 Breadstick

Breadstick
  • Moderators
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Arena Tournament 1
  • Coliseum 1
  • Posts: 11,734
  • Talents: Affliction

Posted 29 June 2016 - 01:15 AM

holy shit ur sperging out like i'm actually active on this forum

THIS GUY POSTS SOCIALIST MEMES ONCE EVERY TWO MONTHS ON ARENA JUNKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FUCKING HORSESHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lmao who could actually care

man i didn't even mention socialism, i posted a picture of lays chips to my friend and it is relevant to him

i'm sorry i never intended to debate a jobless teenager on workers rights and that i don't adhere to ska's debate standards :/
  • 0
s a d b o y s

#53 Buglamp

Buglamp

Posted 29 June 2016 - 01:20 AM

Trump is not the same as Clinton, it's a businessman vs. a basically lifelong politician with obviously more knowledge of the political realm, and foreign policy in particular. Both are viewed as sketchy for different reasons - Trump for business dealing vs. Clinton for Wall Street and the email debacle. Clinton is fairly in line with the democratic party, welfare capitalist(not quite the same as socialist) and interventionist. Trump is clearly more isolationist, that's about all we can tell for sure since he's pretty vague much of the time. Their positions aside, just their public personas are very different and will say different things about the US if they're our elected leader.

Trump also doesn't have good chances to win. The party he wants to run as isn't even sure they want him. People are deluding themselves into thinking he master-planned the republican primary, he really just got lucky they had poor candidates and too many of them. The Republican primary is starting to produce candidates who will be hopeless for the general election and they're probably not going to produce a president for awhile. They're also already scrambling to control the damage Trump may do to their down ballot.

I'd still say Trump has some clear advantages and Clinton isn't very charismatic and gets downright awkward at times, but Trump has already given the democrats piles of ammunition to use against him during the primary - including suggesting he'd ask US soldiers to commit war crimes - which may be true of many politicians but it's just not what you say on a news channel. His handling of the lawsuit against his university(lol) is also making him more enemies.

Clinton's foreign policy speech was also better than any she's done for awhile, so she might be srsing for the general. I'm inclined to believe those who say she preserved resources due to a(relatively) easy primary.

I wouldn't put Trump's chances at 0, but it's probably below 30% at this rate.



I'll admit a bias for Clinton though, I want a real politician and I don't want a more libertarian or isolationist future for the US.
  • 0

#54 FTRouslan

FTRouslan
  • Members
  • Blood Elfclass_name
  • US-Dawnbringer
  • Retaliation
  • Posts: 2,556
  • Talents: Frost

Posted 29 June 2016 - 01:37 AM

Trump is clearly more isolationist, that's about all we can tell for sure since he's pretty vague much of the time. Their positions aside, just their public personas are very different and will say different things about the US if they're our elected leader.


Donald Trump isn't an isolationist.

Trump also doesn't have good chances to win. The party he wants to run as isn't even sure they want him. People are deluding themselves into thinking he master-planned the republican primary, he really just got lucky they had poor candidates and too many of them. The Republican primary is starting to produce candidates who will be hopeless for the general election and they're probably not going to produce a president for awhile. They're also already scrambling to control the damage Trump may do to their down ballot.


Not sure what to make of this except:

1) Of course the party leadership doesn't want to run him. Adhering to Republican Party principles would end the gravy train for them. The Republican Party in Congress has purposely bent the knee to the Obama administration on issues of national integrity, over and over again, because it benefits Wall Street. Amnesty, bailouts, excessive government spending, unlimited funding for Obamacare, Common Core, etc., come straight from the mouthpiece of the US Chamber of Commerce.

2) The "Lucky Hitler" argument fell apart after he dismantled 16 other candidates, one by one, upsetting many tried-and-true political science principles. Attacks by all of the Karl Roves of the day ultimately failed. Hundreds of millions of donor money were wasted. The GOP tried to structure the primary in order to elect Bush with only 25% of the votes. Instead, Donald Trump shattered the roadmap and set records in the process.

3) The down-ballot candidates are only in danger because they're lukewarm Republicans who elicit no support from their base. Several incumbents, like Ayotte, McCain, and Rubio, are facing strong primary challenges. Ironically, if they had stayed true to their values, or joined the Trump train early on, they wouldn't be in nearly as much of a political mess.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plans to run losing candidates, because if Donald Trump wins with a Republican-majority Senate, then the GOP establishment will have no choice but to either acquiesce to Donald Trump, or suffer the fate of former Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

I'd still say Trump has some clear advantages and Clinton isn't very charismatic and gets downright awkward at times, but Trump has already given the democrats piles of ammunition to use against him during the primary - including suggesting he'd ask US soldiers to commit war crimes - which may be true of many politicians but it's just not what you say on a news channel. His handling of the lawsuit against his university(lol) is also making him more enemies.


The Republican establishment has already used up every single attack they could against Donald Trump. The DNC is completely out of ammo. Yet Donald Trump is getting started.

Clinton's foreign policy speech was also better than any she's done for awhile, so she might be srsing for the general. I'm inclined to believe those who say she preserved resources due to a(relatively) easy primary.


On the contrary, Hillary Clinton is doing incredibly poorly, given how easily she won the Democratic Primary and given the viciousness of the GOP primary.

I wouldn't put Trump's chances at 0, but it's probably below 30% at this rate.


Given the fact that pollsters need to sample 50% Democrat voters to even keep Hillary Clinton ahead in the polls, Donald Trump will be running effectively unopposed by October if the Democrats don't replace Hillary Clinton. She has no chance.

I'll admit a bias for Clinton though, I want a real politician and I don't want a more libertarian or isolationist future for the US.


There was chance for long-lasting peace in the Middle East in 2009, when Hillary Clinton begin her tenure as Secretary of State. Within three years, several governments were toppled in US-supported coups, a new radical terrorist group was on the rise thanks to US weapon shipments, and millions of people were either killed or displaced. This has further resulted in political chaos in Europe.

The US-approved Mohammed Morsi government released hundreds of terrorists, some who would go on to plan the Benghazi attack, before the Egyptian Army finally had enough and took over the government again. And the beginnings of a terrible nuclear deal, which places Iran under zero effective restrictions, was underway during Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. What successes can Hillary Clinton count, besides minor token accomplishments that are far overshadowed by the death and destruction she has rained on the world?

If by "real" politician, you mean "failed" politician, then sure. Hillary Clinton is your best bet.
  • 0
Nasty, brutish, and about 6'1".

Look at me. I can start and stop wars, at will. I can save or destroy the world. I can do anything I fucking want. Just now, I pissed near my toilet bowl because I fucking can.


#55 Buglamp

Buglamp

Posted 29 June 2016 - 03:55 AM

Donald Trump isn't an isolationist.


He's opposed to much of our foreign aid and military operations in foreign countries. He's not consistent,but that's the only general trend I see in his foreign policy statements aside from making crazy suggestions on a whim. That, and that the US is weak and also getting killed by everybody economically, I guess, which seems to have no basis in reality whatsoever. He regularly asserts that other countries should be doing things instead of us or for us(and suggesting we charge them for our protection...), most of which we have no means to achieve within reason in most cases. His "Mexico will pay for the wall" shtick is a good example.

I should also note that Putin speaks quite highly of Trump, publicly. If we're speculating, that's an interesting thing to speculate on.

1) Of course the party leadership doesn't want to run him. Adhering to Republican Party principles would end the gravy train for them. The Republican Party in Congress has purposely bent the knee to the Obama administration on issues of national integrity, over and over again, because it benefits Wall Street. Amnesty, bailouts, excessive government spending, unlimited funding for Obamacare, Common Core, etc., come straight from the mouthpiece of the US Chamber of Commerce.


The Republican party was very hostile to Obama publicly and politically(opposing much of his policies), this is just wild speculation of ulterior motives and I think an exaggeration of how organized and in pocket politicians are. Not that I doubt some degree of corruption on both sides, but not to the extent that the Republican and Democratic parties are working so in unison. Different sectors and interests spend more/less on different sides. And this isn't a Democrat and/or Republican, or even a two party system issue really, nor is Trump the answer to it.

2) The "Lucky Hitler" argument fell apart after he dismantled 16 other candidates, one by one, upsetting many tried-and-true political science principles. Attacks by all of the Karl Roves of the day ultimately failed. Hundreds of millions of donor money were wasted. The GOP tried to structure the primary in order to elect Bush with only 25% of the votes. Instead, Donald Trump shattered the roadmap and set records in the process.


He had help "dismantling" because he wasn't taken seriously as a threat so he other candidates put more resources into competing with eachother. Things could've gone differently had they chosen between Bush or Rubio especially. Trump was able to stand out for being the different candidate amongst a bunch of samey candidates.

3) The down-ballot candidates are only in danger because they're lukewarm Republicans who elicit no support from their base. Several incumbents, like Ayotte, McCain, and Rubio, are facing strong primary challenges. Ironically, if they had stayed true to their values, or joined the Trump train early on, they wouldn't be in nearly as much of a political mess.


Joining the Trump train is clearly an extreme political risk, already republicans can be seen trying to earn brownie points for scolding him or distancing themselves from him. Also some down-ballot candidates depend more on moderates in "purple" states, who aren't so enamored with what Trump is selling.


The Republican establishment has already used up every single attack they could against Donald Trump. The DNC is completely out of ammo. Yet Donald Trump is getting started.


Getting started how? By being less funded and having less political support from the party he's running for than Hillary has from democrats? By regularly making an ass of himself on public television? By losing approval rating in polls? He's not doing very well if this is him "getting started".



On the contrary, Hillary Clinton is doing incredibly poorly, given how easily she won the Democratic Primary and given the viciousness of the GOP primary.


The viciousness of the GOP primary is the reason Trump did well. Hillary also just isn't doing poorly. She's ahead of Trump by most measures and her campaign will be stronger and Trump is going to take a hit from either ducking out debates or losing them without the kind of crowd element he had in the primary that his simplistic rhetoric but lack of knowledge relies on. We'll really see what's behind the curtain when the debate is on. Maybe Trump will finally surprise everyone and be a genius and well informed debater during the general all of the sudden, but I'm doubtful.

Given the fact that pollsters need to sample 50% Democrat voters to even keep Hillary Clinton ahead in the polls, Donald Trump will be running effectively unopposed by October if the Democrats don't replace Hillary Clinton. She has no chance.


50% of the US population lean democrat. Poll deviation data is also available, and deviations are minor compared to actual voting results. I don't think the 12 point gap between Clinton and Trump can be dismissed so easily. Maybe early polls are being gamed, maybe not, but again that just sounds like excessive speculation.

There was chance for long-lasting peace in the Middle East in 2009, when Hillary Clinton begin her tenure as Secretary of State. Within three years, several governments were toppled in US-supported coups, a new radical terrorist group was on the rise thanks to US weapon shipments, and millions of people were either killed or displaced. This has further resulted in political chaos in Europe.


Claiming anything as a "good chance" for long lasting peace in the middle east within the last century is probably a stretch. Clinton also had very high approval rating as Secretary of State.

The US-approved Mohammed Morsi government released hundreds of terrorists, some who would go on to plan the Benghazi attack, before the Egyptian Army finally had enough and took over the government again. And the beginnings of a terrible nuclear deal, which places Iran under zero effective restrictions, was underway during Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. What successes can Hillary Clinton count, besides minor token accomplishments that are far overshadowed by the death and destruction she has rained on the world?


"US-approved" doesn't imply as much as people read into it. There are often few good options for leaders that would be accepted by the public. They don't have a culture/environment or institutions that're ready to support democratic election. The US has made some bad decisions but blaming later events on them is an easy thing to do in hindsight when we don't know what might've happened under different circumstances/different leaders.
  • 0

#56 pharrelle

pharrelle
  • Junkies
  • Night Elfclass_name
  • EU-Outland
  • Misery
  • Posts: 694
  • Talents: Restoration 1/2/0/0/././.

Posted 29 June 2016 - 04:21 PM

maybe a world of warcraft pvp forum isn't the right place to discuss politics?
  • 1

SKrRBu7.jpg


#57 YVNG_CARL_YVNG

YVNG_CARL_YVNG
  • Members
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Die ewige Wacht
  • Glutsturm / Emberstorm
  • Posts: 1,065
  • Talents: Subtlety 1/1/2/1/0/1/.

Posted 29 June 2016 - 04:44 PM

I am 100% serious in my support for Nigel Farage and UKIP. And the destruction of EU can't happen sooner for the PIGS countries impoverished by disastrous EU policies. The European Union should have never extended beyond France, Germany, and the Low Countries. It should have never evolved beyond the Maastricht Treaty. And it should have never been allowed to be unaccountable to the people.


I'm speechless. I don't oppose your support for Trump, because I know Trump has a program beyond populism. I think Trump's fiscal politics are better than Hilary's, I have a feeling he might be able to change the bigger picture in Washington, though it is highly unlikely. In short: I get it.

Now Farage on the other hand is a completely different horse.

Farage is a bottomfeeder, a parasite of the worst kind. How can you respect someone like this?
'Why are you still here?' asks EU's Juncker amid barrage of Nigel Farage

The European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, has clashed bitterly with Nigel Farage, pointedly asking the Ukip leader in front of the European parliament in Brussels: “Why are you still here?”

“When I came here 17 years ago and said I wanted to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the European Union you all laughed at me. Well, I have to say, you’re not laughing now are you?” he taunted.

“And the reason you’re so upset, the reason you’re so angry, has been perfectly clear from all the angry exchanges this morning. You, as a political project, are in denial. You are in denial that your currency is failing,” Farage said.

Despite urging a “grown-up” conversation between the EU and Britain, Farage continued in a similarly mocking vein throughout his monologue, at one point telling MEPs: “Virtually none of you have ever done a proper job in your lives.”

After BREXIT hundreds of Londoners reported violence against immigrants, or "perceived" immigrants:

http://www.independe...n-a7104191.html

Britain is one of the countries crying the loudest about immigration, yet even though a member of the EU they blatantly ignored the refugee crisis. If anything Germans, Austrians, Swedes, Swiss, Norwegians, Danes and essentially every other country bar Poland and the Ukraine should be complaining, but they aren't. You know why? Because immigration isn't the reason why those countries are doing bad. It certainly isn't the reason why Britain is doing bad.

The exact opposite is true. A lot of elite businessmen, scholars, uni graduates et cetera from European countries are coming to London every day because they used to be able to work there without a visa. London has an incredible amount of young talent, which is what made it one of the most successful financial capitals in the entire world.

And you want to know what the dumbest thing is? Leaving the EU will only worsen the problem of illegal immigration. Europe is planning to invest millions of € in the next few years for stricter border controls, more personnel and more administration for faster deportations. Britain will see none of that. Voting for BREXIT because of immigration is insane. It does not compute.

Exactly! Remember this comment that you made?

Leaving the European Union has nothing to do with leaving NATO, abandoning all intentions of trading, completely closing off borders, etc. This is why I don't understand where your fear of British isolationism comes from. How is asserting national sovereignty "isolationism"? Advocating for self-interest doesn't mean that mutually beneficial agreements can't be made with the consent of both parties.


It's not about leaving the NATO or not, you interpreted my post in the wrong way. The point I was making is that a weak Europe, or I should say an even weaker Europe, will not stand united, will not support each other, will give in to aggressors and has a much worse basis for negotiations.

Power is not exclusively military power or exclusively contracts, treaties and diplomacy.

Boris Johnson might be a different story. I don't particularly know him or like him. But a UKIP-lead United Kingdom, with Nigel Farage as PM, would certainly not be isolationist under the policies that Nigel Farage has advocated for decades.


I have just read their party program in detail and it seems we have different definitions of isolationist, because UKIP if described with three words is this: populist, traditionalist, isolationist.

Everything in the program focuses on "us first, them later". There even is concrete mention of shutting Britain off (in terms of immigration) and actually reducing tourism (eg phenomenons like health tourism)


http://www.reuters.c...e-idUSKCN0ZC0BQ

http://static.pressp.../DokumentUE.pdf

States will no longer be able to field their own armies, decide their own fiscal policy, decide their own foreign policy, adopt their own national bank, etc. Terrifying document, especially given that the current structure of the European Union political system has little or no accountability to the people of Europe.


I have read those articles prior and I would have liked had you tackled this topic in your own words, but that's okay. I don't think any of this will happen, not in the near future and not ever. Especially not in the current climate in the EU.

Most politicians in Brussels have realized that essentially every country that isn't Germany, France or the Benelux states wants less EU, not more EU. Those politicians are scared shitless and will be doing anything in their power in order to stop referendums in countries where they could possibly succeed: Spain, the Netherlands...

Right now politicians all over Europe are working out how to reduce bureaucracy, how to restore the faith in this institution called the EU. Pulling through with this crazy idea would be nothing short of suicide. I really do hope you realize that and are not easily swayed by the media.

My comment was referring to European Union's response to Brexit.


You will have to elaborate on this. There was no consensus. The only demand that Germany made for example was that Cameron would deliver a plan of the exit as soon as possible so that it is final. The reason why they were so eager is because they want to gain back stability after what happened to the pound.

Remember when President Obama threatened to move the United Kingdom to the "back of the queue", despite their century-long alliance? Are you paying attention to the harsh terms that the European Commission wants to impose on the United Kingdom for leaving, despite the possible negative effects on native German industries?


What are those "harsh terms" and why are they too harsh in your opinion? What would be possible negative effects on the German economy?

The European Union will begin to crumble if they don't impose harsh terms on the United Kingdom for leaving, which proves that it never had the interests of the British people, or really, the European people, at heart.


I will not defend the fiscal politics of the European union, because I do not fully agree with them and never have. However, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the European Unions first and foremost priority is.

It is not the European economy, it is keeping the peace in mainland Europe. And they have done a damn good job keeping it for the last 70 years. That is the reason why we desperately need the EU in times of crisis.

"Special treatment"? You mean, special treatment for the financial industry by retaining the pound, right?


I did not mean that, no. I was referring to the fact that GB was paying less relative to the other members in terms of dues. Of course they still payed a lot, they are one of Europes strongest economies after all.

I suppose retaining the pound is special treatment aswell, but there are other countries that kept their currency and they never asked for special treatment beyond that.

I'm sure the UK fishing industry didn't enjoy "special treatment" when they were denied access to their own fishing waters, so other EU countries could fish them.


Your point is moot. The reason why they were denied access is because they didn't obey EU regulations in the first place. They were overfishing the waters, which can cause great harm in the long time. Fish is not an indefinite resource.

Furthermore BREXIT will not even help with this issue: https://www.theguard...greater-catches

I'm sure the average working-class British worker didn't enjoy "special treatment" when their wages were pushed down thanks to unchecked immigration.


I suppose I answered this earlier with my rant on immigration, but if you want I can answer this point specifically.


The working-class voters of the United Kingdom voted in their self-interest. Even British-minority districts, like Luton, voted overwhelmingly to remain. Many Remainers could do nothing to support their position except ruin the meaning of words like "racism", "xenophobia", etc.


This is simply untrue and you are being in denial. You cannot honestly think there is not one upside to remaining in the EU.

And nothing offered by the European Union is irreplaceable by a half-decent transition to independence, given the fact that the United Kingdom contributed more to the European Union than it received.


I respectfully disagree.

Already, the the stock markets are beginning to recover after the undeserved panic created by the upset, thanks to all of the bets hedged for Remain. The sky isn't falling. The world isn't about to end. And I think that the world will be better off with Brexit.


I really do hope so, Britain lying down on the ground and then being kicked is not in my interest. I want Britain to remain strong, even now that it separated from the EU.

It's a joke. I don't actually have an altar. It would be nice, though.


I was not talking about the altar, but rather your sympathy for Farage.
  • 0

#58 YVNG_CARL_YVNG

YVNG_CARL_YVNG
  • Members
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Die ewige Wacht
  • Glutsturm / Emberstorm
  • Posts: 1,065
  • Talents: Subtlety 1/1/2/1/0/1/.

Posted 29 June 2016 - 04:48 PM

maybe a world of warcraft pvp forum isn't the right place to discuss politics?


It's not at all about the context or the means of communication, it's just about the people. I could've just created a Skype group chat, but this discussion is supposed to be public.

You have no more or less of a reason to be a meme-spouting peace of shit here than you do on Skype, Facebook, WhatsApp and so forth. If anything you should have less incentive, because (in my opinion) that is not how one should present himself.

I'm not a serious person. I enjoy the banter on here, I like the humor, even the blatant shitposting sometimes, but all of those should be reserved for a less serious, less impactful topic of debate.
  • 0

#59 Forumz

Forumz
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Argent Dawn
  • Cataclysme / Cataclysm
  • Posts: 3,141
  • Talents: Shadow 2/1/1/1/./.
  • 2v2: 2728
  • 3v3: 2279
  • 5v5: 96
  • RBG: 768

Posted 29 June 2016 - 05:39 PM

Tfw Americans still think healthcare & welfare are some kind of hopeless programs that do more harm than good and will ruin their country.

''but muh taxes omg!''

'_>'

Edited by Forumz, 29 June 2016 - 05:40 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#60 FTRouslan

FTRouslan
  • Members
  • Blood Elfclass_name
  • US-Dawnbringer
  • Retaliation
  • Posts: 2,556
  • Talents: Frost

Posted 30 June 2016 - 12:40 AM

Carl (okay you've gone by a ton of different names, and I still don't know what to use), I'm more than happy to talk about this with you over Skype. I actually like, as a person and a politician, Nigel Farage more than I like Donald Trump, and they both are part of the same "program" in the sense that they are combating the neoliberal agenda pushed by the Wall Street/London/etc. financiers and the multinational corporations.

-- --

I still don't see UKIP as "traditionalist/isolationist". It makes me think that you think they want to go back to the time of Celts or something. I wouldn't call curbing the rate of globalization "isolationism". Rather, I would call it a sound attempt to advance society without disrupting social cohesion. Protecting the livelihood of the average person isn't a vice, it's a virtue.

-- --

I don't understand how you think Nigel Farage is a "bottom feeder" in the context that you provided, especially given that, no matter how diplomatic or tender he presents his position, he will always be branded as a "fascist" for pursuing UK independence.

President Juncker decides to attack Nigel Farage, with half of the EU Parliament cheering him on, and you're upset that Nigel Farage laid some cold, hard truths in front of them?

The saddest consequence of Brexit is the fact that Nigel Farage will no longer be able to laugh in the faces of the arrogant bureaucrats who think they can govern without the consent of the people.

-- --

FYI, I felt that I would address this point first: an increase in "reports" doesn't mean an increase in actual violence.

http://news.npcc.pol...nces-say-police

There has been an of 57% increase in reporting to True Vision since Friday compared to this time last month (85 reports between Thursday 23 –Sunday 26 June compared with 54 reports the corresponding 4 days four weeks ago.) These figures only take into account reports through one mechanism, reports are also made directly to forces and other community groups like Tell Mama and Community Security so this is not an overall national figure. This should not be read as a national increase in hate crime of 57% but an increase in reporting through one mechanism.


Another blip on the radar. If even that. And I think preserving the economic integrity of an entire country is more important than paying lip service to diversity, especially since most of these attacks are exacerbated, not mitigated, by the constant media propaganda.
  • 0
Nasty, brutish, and about 6'1".

Look at me. I can start and stop wars, at will. I can save or destroy the world. I can do anything I fucking want. Just now, I pissed near my toilet bowl because I fucking can.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

<