How many times did I agree with that? How many times did I say they could be involved in debate? I made that clear practically every time I spoke on the subject. But that is not all they were doing, is it? And it certainly wasn’t the only thing you were arguing about. You have lost this argument every time you brought it up, but you cannot let go of it. The EU even admitted it (Tusk imploring the nation to reverse Brexit via a general election) but you dismiss it as inconvenient, as you also did with UK, EU and international laws you said did not exist, even after I quoted them. Do not try now to remove the misguided ‘nuance’ you brought to your argument. Why argue that the laws don’t exist, when they blatantly do and are one of the first accepted understandings of international relationships (non interference) if your argument is saying they were not interfering in the first place? The absurdity of someone saying that the EU had less influence on the Brexit campaign and the attempt to turn it over after it was made, than the Russians, would be considered quite astounding if it came from anywhere except your WFCForum account.
He has millions of dollars tied up in election funds he cannot touch, runs his campaign at Trump businesses and profits, did this the last two times he ran too.
'Make America Glorious Again' is obviously not much of a departure from 'Make America Great Again' but at least it will give The Donald a chance to flog some of the MAGA merchandise left over from last time that is currently filling up his shed.
So we come back to a difference of interpretation. You have interpreted the EU involvement BEFORE the referendum as 'going beyond debate' into the realms of 'illegal interference'; I have not reached that conclusion, and nor, it would seem has the world at large, including such as the ERG. Yes, the laws exist, no disputing that, and I have already stated in previous posts that you often attach informative links to your posts. But did the EU actually break any of those laws? The evidence of the lack of any hue and cry after the 2016 vote suggests most people think not. You disagree; fair enough, but that does not make you right. Your comments re: Tusk's 2019 involvement are not directly germane to the discussion as to the illegality or otherwise of the EU's involvement leading up to the referendum itself. I accepted your point that what Tusk did prior to the 2019 GE was wrong, but did not accept your contention that it represented the official policy of an 'aggressive foreign power' (with implied malign aims) as you decided to term the EU. I suggested Tusk's outburst could be more usefully viewed as highly personal, coming as it did from his avowed 'Britanno-philia' and belief that both the EU and UK would benefit from Brexit being reversed. His intervention was clearly wrong, but I am not convinced it should be viewed in the terms you used. Again, your interpretation is totally opposite to mine, and that is fair enough. It does not make your interpretation 'right'. Would you view the USA under Trump's presidency as 'an aggressive foreign power' in the same manner as the EU in the context of his comments during the negotiations between UK & EU after the 2016 referendum? Some definitions that may be apposite: Nuanced thinking: ....acknowledges grey areas and complexities of diverse points of view and perceptions of reality, not falling into the pitfalls of 'x is absolutely wrong' or 'y is absolutely correct.' Binary thinking: ....results in concepts, ideas and problems being overly simplified into 'either/or', 'good or bad', 'right or wrong'. Absolutist thinking....can promote emotional distress, particularly anger, when confronted by situations or points of view which do not conform to an idea of what SHOULD be the case.
The EU acted illegally during the Brexit referendum? I don't remember that case and the verdict going against them. In fact I tried googling "EU illegal interference in Brexit referendum" and got nothing back about it. You would have thought that the conviction of the EU for illegal interference in Brexit would have at least got some media coverage. Of course I'm sure that whoever is saying it happened can provide a link to the case. Unless it's just someone's opinion that they might of illegally interfered. Unfortunately for them it's innocent until proven guilty. In fact there has not even been any investigation by the UK government, as there was with the alleged Russian interference, shows what a nonsense these unfounded allegations are.
When have I expressed anger or distress when replying to your posts? Yet you have repeatedly berated me, with anger, for expressing my opinion and for presenting you with evidence that contradicted what you said. I do not believe I have ever uttered an angry word towards you, or told you that you were wrong to have the opinions you had. I am merely telling you that I believe your opinions have been wrong, and explained why I believe that. But, for whatever reason, you seem to need me to agree with you. Well, I don't. Because to agree with you, I would have to deny reality. I mean, you have repeatedly told me that Third World does not have the same meaning that the person who coined the phrase expressly described it to have. It is fair for you to have that belief, but it is fair that you then be judged amidst the factual reality that contradicts you. The stuff you reproduce to explain nuance, binary thinking, etc. only highlights your own lack of nuance and complete embracing of Absolutist thinking. Tusks remark's were made by the EU President, and if he had wished to make such personal views, he could have done so at any time, in any circumstances, but he chose to make them at an official EU event, in his role as President. Please, feel free to bolster my argument with this coping argument you insist on making. What you think is irrelevent, compared to the factual occurance that took place, fully recorded and rewatchable, only proves me correct, whilst you keep citing evidence that supports me as proof I am wrong. All you are doing is showing that you do not see the nuance when it doesn't suit you to do so. Tell me I am wrong. Tell me that it is only my opinion that he was EU President. Go on. My argument needs nothing other than the video to be repeated. Your argument requires a suspension of belief and denial of the facts. As with most things you say. But you cannot see it.
I know you guys are reacting, for the 88th time, to someone else's inane wibblings but could you please do it in another/more appropriate thread. There are a number of EU/Brexit ones.
Fair point. I did not re-introduce that topic into this thread, but I should have refrained from replying to the post that did.
Tusk admitted to it, and got away with it. You can ignore that if you like, but it does not erase it from history. Just goes to show that you are selective in the evidence you listen to. That kind of behaviour goes on all the time. I don't remember Russia getting prosecuted either, but it didn't stop you all from waffling on about it ad nauseum, which is the reason I made the argument against the EU to demonstrate your hypocrissy. Like I say. You guys demonstrate the poor nature of your understanding and the weakness of your own arguments far better than I ever can. No wonder you get so upset with me for pointing it out. See 63's post above describing absolutism to understand how you appear to others. Happy to take this elsewhere...
If you hadn't said and done the things, I wouldn't be able to upset you by mentioning them. And if you didn't constantly try to smear and put down others, including me, by accusing or inferring that they do things that you yourself have voluntarily and openly done on this forum, then I would likely have no reason to remind you. Why on earth would I not remind you of comments you made that appear to contradict your stsnce on racism, when you accuse others of it? It would be like you not mentioning post boxes whenever Boris says that racism is unacceptable. And I don't think anyone should stop you from doing that, because his comment makes him fair game, just as yours make you fair game. Do you remember how you used to hound ZZ if he made a factual mistake, and bang on about him being a liar? You don't hold any high moral ground in this forum Moose. It's just shame, for you, that you cannot take what you like to dish out.
Trump hosted a tasty gathering at Mar-a-lago last night, inviting the likes of Shyte Supremacist, Anti-Semite (they will not replace us, he says), Anti-women voting, Paleo-conservative (I **** you not) Nick Fuentes. He arrived with Kanye West, who was wearing a jacket a bit like Alan Partridge’s Castrol one, except this bore the legend ‘NASA’. Time to be alive.
America is lost. https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1595519454900805649 "He murdered 5 people? Sheeiit, at least he ain't gay"
..and this **** was one of Trump's lawyers. https://mobile.twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1595550500933484552
But only a communist would suggest a connection between the availability of guns and someone like this using them.
You have the mind of a child and have managed to ignore all the evidence that came in the trial. The comment about looters was made months before and was dismissed by the judge because using it would have been the equivalent of using a comment from a football fan that they could kill a referee for a bad decision against you in a court of law. It might have been different if he had been running towards the people he shot before he did so, but the video evidence, as well as the evidence of all witnesses, is that he was running away from them when they attacked him, and he only shot people who either attacked him or pointed guns at him. That is why ‘self defence’. It takes a nasty piece of work to ignore the evidence and to blatantly and knowingly lie about well evidenced circumstances. So what makes you feel that your lies are justified? And why should Rittenhaus be treated differently to anyone else? Just because you don’t like his politics? Are you a fascist? Because that would be justification for your opinion. The Indian owner of the car shop he was protecting said that Rittenhaus had offered to be involved in fund raisers for the damage caused. There is no evidence that Rittenhaus, a registered Hispanic, is in any way racist. But your unfortunate and ill informed opinion is far more important than any facts. Yeugh. Disgusting.
Rather than reply to HH, I thought it might be nice to save a few of his words as inspirational quotes.
My favourite is ‘definition of the term has nothing to do with my use of it.’ So an effective blank cheque (or should that be ‘check’?) in all ‘discussion’.
It’s offishal. Kanye is running for President. Well known anti-Semite and general lover of all things very right wing, Kanye West has his sights set on the White House. Could it get lower than Trump? Very possibly. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/nov/25/kanye-west-presidential-run-2024
Trump now claiming that Kanye turned up to dinner "with 3 guests that he knew nothing about". Seems odd that the US secret service detail would allow such unvetted guests but I'm sure it all worked out well.
Do you think this upsets or worries me? Ignoring evidence and lying about a person to prosecute or persecute them is something that is typically reserved for fascists. All you lefties have done it. I am just asking why it is that you say you are anti fascists, but enjoy using their methods when discussing your political oponents. I know what it smells like to me, and no pretty pictures you use to distract from your lack of any guilty feelings, or conscience, will change that. You are all the things you claim not to be, and that you accuse others of being, and you can't stop telling everyone about it, before complaining that some people point at you and say hypocrite. It's a valid question. Are you a bunch of fascists? And if not, why do you act in a way that suggests so strongly that you are? People will stop saying that you are acting like fascists when you stop doing it.
Do we have a source for that? It’s the kind of thing that’s a little too funny and obvious. But then these are not subtle men. As for Kanye, he doesn’t have a hope if Trump takes against him, but then he doesn’t have a hope. It’s just a way for him to be parted from some cash.
Beeb reported that he claimed to have asked Trump to be running mate: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63754702
Still, uninvited unknown guests aside at least we know Mar-A-Lago is the perfect place to store classified and/or presidential records.
If only there were some sort of ‘definition’ of the term so we could all discuss it from a common point of reference.
