Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Mr Badger, May 8, 2019.
Since when did I give you the authority to speak on my behalf?
When you repeatedly refused to answer the questions being asked of you, I looked for the evidence from your other statements. And found it.
It’s not often I’ll give an overly emotional response but...
You and your views, are absolutely not “this country”.
We are not in any way alike, just because we are both English and white.
I am not “your own”, and you are not “my own”.
After you went on an undeniably racist rant yesterday, you asked me to explain what was racist about your post, so I obliged and broke it down point by point.
You ignored my response...
Stop trying to claim that anyone who doesn’t share your ethnonationalist views, and who hasn’t allowed themselves to become grossly manipulated by far right propaganda and Nazi conspiracy theories, is a “traitor to their own”.
Frankly, as a patriot who deeply loves his country, I find your rhetoric deeply un-British and dangerously close in substance and narrative to that of our greatest historical enemy.
You don’t speak for this country.
Yeah exactly my thoughts as well.
Then quote my responses rather than your revisionist version of my words, thank you.
As you continually refuse to answer questions so you don’t have any responses to quote, that is why I suggested to give more detailed answers to the questions people ask you. That way they understand what you mean.
For example can you explain the economic benefits of the no deal wto brexit you strongly support ?
I don’t understand what they are and was hoping as a strong , vocal supporter of a no deal wto brexit you could help.
But The_Abyss claims to have found my previous answers! So how could I be lying about having already providing them?
In that case the answer is you are a strong , vocal supporter of a no deal wto brexit but cannot explain what the economic benefits are.
Of course. I'll just sample some of the more recent posts. That's a courtesy you don't appear to have afforded the remainder of the forum - providing direct responses to direct questions.
So, do you agree that if fewer than 50% of the electorate support the Brexit Party and UKIP then there's no majority mandate to leave the EU without a deal? Your previous posts above suggest that as a majority voted for parties supporting Brexit in the past general election then that's a mandate to leave on any terms.
You're surely dodging the question if The_Abyss is so sure he knows what I've said because he's found my posts them you should be able to as well.
They're posted above. They're not the answers to the questions you've been asked - you haven't provided those. They're evidence that you are applying one understanding to a situation, a majority of the electorate supporting an outcome, and therefore evidence that if you consistently apply that same understanding we have your response to what happens if only a minority of the electorate support a no deal Brexit, i.e. there's no mandate for this.
Whenever I hear "betraying their own", "Judas" etc, I instinctively wonder how often the same speaker, who uses those sorts of words, uses terms like "race traitor".
What's your view of Enoch Powell, and his "Rivers of Blood" speech?
See above for your answer.
The question is then why given you can’t explain the economic benefits of a wto no deal brexit, or the political, democratic or social benefits either, what makes you such a strong supporter of a wto no deal brexit ?
I think even if The Brexit Party get less than 50% it will still be greater than Lib Dems + Change UK.
But you've avoided the question again, which was about no deal Brexit. Only two parties are pushing for this, and if fewer than 50% of the electorate vote for them, as per your previous statements do you accept that there is no mandate for a no deal Brexit? Or are you just using this position when it suits your own particular point?
It is likely that the BP will get more seats than the parties who have declared strongly for Remain: Lib Dems + CUK + Greens + SNP. Probably will be close though. But then add in the Labour seats, who are not in favour of No Deal and this will be clearly more than the BP+UKIP. So the mandate for No Deal just isn't there, even if you add the Tories into the No Deal side of the equation.
It's not relevant since I don't believe the parties campaigning for remain are greater than those campaigning for leave.
It's also not relevant because we've had a democratic GE in 2017 where not only the majority stood on leave manifestos but the majority of UK parliament voted to trigger Art.50. Every MP knew what was in Art.50 because it was their job to know what they were voting on. Leaving without a deal was always in Art.50 and has been there since the Treaty of Lisbon came in to effect from 2009.
The reason we haven't left already is because parliament have stalled for time rather than adhering to what they already agreed to in Art.50
It is entirely relevant, because the public are voting. As you've repeatedly said, this is an opportunity to send a message. So if that message is that a majority do not support a no deal Brexit then that's an important one, and the majority of people don't believe that we should leave without a deal. If they did, they've had a clear opportunity to express their view. Especially in the case of the Brexit Party, as it is literally their only stated objective.
So, whether or not you consider it relevant, what's your view? Do you have the same view (that you've helpfully restated above, thank you) that it is valid that a majority of people voted for parties with manifestos to leave, in that if a majority refuse to vote for parties who have manifestos / sole objectives to leave without a deal, then there's no mandate to leave without a deal.
Why won’t you answer the question? It’s a very simple one.
I can almost hear your mental gymnastics working in overdrive as you’re trying to somehow massage your answer into something that doesn’t contradict your predetermined views.
That discomfort you’re feeling is known as cognitive dissonance.
You can't add Tory or Labour into that equation because neither are pro one way or the other. It's disingenuous to only count whether BP + UKIP get over 50%. If it were indicative votes it would be whether that option had the highest support.
Separate names with a comma.