Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

The important thing to remember is that Ad Hominem is simply not useful on its own. It is noise.

robindch

From March, NewsThump reports that Psychiatric hospitals are filling up with time travellers sent back to kill Donald Trump:

http://newsthump.com/2016/03/03/psychiatric-hospitals-filling-up-with-time-travellers-sent-back-to-kill-donald-trump/

Suryavarman

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Why exactly? If there's a problem with a sources credibility - that problem needs to be explained, or it's just a smear.

I just spat water all over my laptop. For you to say something like that is just completely ludicrous. All you do on Boards is smear the sources people use in a bid to discount the info in those posts or smear people as ideologues. The lengths you go to to avoid honest debate is quite pathetic really. For instance, digging up 100 year old quotes from people to discredit all modern work associated with a society or digging up 4 year old posts in a bid to smear other posters. The smug satisfaction you seem to get from such activities is pretty peculiar.

robindch

^^^ Suryavarman, a bit of chill wouldn't go amiss this wonderful Friday afternoon.

Thanking youze.

FA Hayek

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Citing merely the name of a website, doesn't actually make any sense as a reason to be skeptical of the website

Of course it does. If someone posted something from storefront.com or ihateblackpeople.com then ones first instinct is to be sceptical of it.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ad Hominem's, still have to provide a valid argument.

Again to quote you.

Ad Hominem is a necessity in attacking the credibility of sources in cases like this - and why that is valid, simply as a matter of practicality, in online discussion

It seems you are spinning your previous posts but its there in black and white.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You make a lot of smearing claims about the Right Wing Watch website in your post.

A lot of claims? Eh, the only claim I made about the website is that it is funded by a billionaire in the name of George Soros. Do you deny these two facts?

I don't know a great deal about Soro's - maybe he is discreditable.

Well, you stated earlier the following.

I've actually gone and looked up Right Wing Watch for a bit, including people associated with it, without being able to find anything discreditable.

Clearly you missed the obvious, or that you actually didn't look it up at all.
George Soros was convicted in 2002 for insider trading by the French courts. A decision upheld by the High court of France and the European Court of Human Rights.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-10-06/soros-loses-human-rights-appeal-against-insider-trading-case

Given that the Koch brother were never convicted of such financial irregularities then perhaps they are more honourable, trustworthy and honest than someone with a criminal conviction, the the primary funder of rightwingwatch.org.

KomradeBishop

orubiru wrote: »

That's the thing. People don't see the double standards.

Even when the double standard is pointed out they will try to rationalise their way around it.

Maybe that's just human nature though. If we were watching the Saturday morning football match and the referee gives a bad decision against our team? It's an absolute outrage and a disgrace. The referee gives a bad decision against the other team? Ah, sure, that's just the way the game goes, isn't it?

Maybe we are all guilty of this to some extent?

This is magnified on the internet because nobody wants to be Wrong On The Internet.

Neither you, or anyone else, has shown a double standard. I provide well sourced criticisms of the credibility of an organizations reputation, and all that has been provided in the case of Right Wing Watch, is just unbacked smears.

What you and others are trying to do, is reduce discussion to the level of 'tu quoque' - a fallacious appeal to hypocrisy - so that you can drag down the standards of argument, to such a low level, that anything goes.

That's the preferable level of discussion quality, for people who want to engage entirely in rhetoric-based argument - and who want to discard with all reasoned/logical argument.

Please objectively compare the

... well sourced criticisms of the credibility of an organizations reputation

with the

provided in the case of Right Wing Watch, is just unbacked smears

Then when you're finished with doing that, take a moment to recall that someone's reputation has almost zero impact on the veracity of their arguments. (unless you prove it to be the case)

The Cognitive Dissonance required to accuse others who wish to discuss the actual arguments of engaging in rhetoric, when you are the one who dismisses arguments offhand because of who makes them and not what they are is bizarre.

KomradeBishop

Suryavarman wrote: »

I just spat water all over my laptop. For you to say something like that is just completely ludicrous. All you do on Boards is smear the sources people use in a bid to discount the info in those posts or smear people as ideologues. The lengths you go to to avoid honest debate is quite pathetic really. For instance, digging up 100 year old quotes from people to discredit all modern work associated with a society or digging up 4 year old posts in a bid to smear other posters. The smug satisfaction you seem to get from such activities is pretty peculiar.

Not all sources are equal - and not all sources deserve equal credibility; particularly, sources with a history of proven lies and propaganda, do not deserve any credibility.

If you want to use sources with a proven history of lies and propaganda, to back your arguments - i.e. if you want to associate yourself with organizations with a proven history of dishonesty and lying - the problem is with you, not me. There is nothing stopping you, citing more credible sources instead - but you reliably choose to pick ones with a bad track record, that's on you.

Given that posters like yourself and others here, use such sources in order to create barriers in discussion - i.e. to continuously throw lengthy low quality sources at people, that reliably/always contain complete lies/fabrications/propaganda, in order to try and make it impractical for others to debate with you due to the time it would take - then it's your own fault that you legitimize Ad Hominem, as a time-based practical necessity in debates.

Nobody is obliged to waste their time, with sources that are proven to put out lies - if people spend any of their time on such sources, they are actually doing you a favour, and you are wasting their time (with you having a very condescending attitude about it as well...) - that's just how Internet debates work, it's a practical necessity, and that's never going to change.

You can not cite anything on this site, showing any level of dishonesty or smears from me - you are engaging in the 'tu quoque' I describe in my previous post, where you pretend that other posters drop to your standards of source-credibility and argument, when that is not true.


When people start throwing around 'tu quoque' i.e. appeal to hypocrisy in arguments, they are usually doing two things:
1: They are trying to engage in a smear against a poster, to pretend they are 'just as bad' - without citing any proof; i.e. they are effectively lying about a poster, to smear their reputation.

2: They implicitly admit they are doing the things, they accuse the other poster of - as that's inherent when you accuse someone of hypocrisy like that - and they are trying to legitimize that poor form of argument, as valid, in order to deliberately drag down the quality of discussion, to just pure rhetoric.

Suryavarman

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Not all sources are equal - and not all sources deserve equal credibility; particularly, sources with a history of proven lies and propaganda, do not deserve any credibility.

If you want to use sources with a proven history of lies and propaganda, to back your arguments - i.e. if you want to associate yourself with organizations with a proven history of dishonesty and lying - the problem is with you, not me. There is nothing stopping you, citing more credible sources instead - but you reliably choose to pick ones with a bad track record, that's on you.

Given that posters like yourself and others here, use such sources in order to create barriers in discussion - i.e. to continuously throw lengthy low quality sources at people, that reliably/always contain complete lies/fabrications/propaganda, in order to try and make it impractical for others to debate with you due to the time it would take - then it's your own fault that you legitimize Ad Hominem, as a time-based practical necessity in debates.

Nobody is obliged to waste their time, with sources that are proven to put out lies - if people spend any of their time on such sources, they are actually doing you a favour, and you are wasting their time (with you having a very condescending attitude about it as well...) - that's just how Internet debates work, it's a practical necessity, and that's never going to change.

You can not cite anything on this site, showing any level of dishonesty or smears from me - you are engaging in the 'tu quoque' I describe in my previous post, where you pretend that other posters drop to your standards of source-credibility and argument, when that is not true.


When people start throwing around 'tu quoque' i.e. appeal to hypocrisy in arguments, they are usually doing two things:
1: They are trying to engage in a smear against a poster, to pretend they are 'just as bad' - without citing any proof; i.e. they are effectively lying about a poster, to smear their reputation.

2: They implicitly admit they are doing the things, they accuse the other poster of - as that's inherent when you accuse someone of hypocrisy like that - and they are trying to legitimize that poor form of argument, as valid, in order to deliberately drag down the quality of discussion, to just pure rhetoric.

*Yawns*

KomradeBishop

FA Hayek wrote: »

Of course it does. If someone posted something from storefront.com or ihateblackpeople.com then ones first instinct is to be sceptical of it.

If all I knew about a website, was that it was named Stor[m]Front - i.e. I knew nothing about its history or what it was about - then no, a person would have to be an idiot to think there is anything wrong with that site, purely down to its name (it could be merely about the weather, for all they know...).

You find out that StormFront is bad, not by its name, but by reading about its racist reputation - which is precisely what I did with the other sites you mention, and precisely what you did not do, with Right Wing Watch.

The same actually applies to 'IHateBlackPeople.com' - I suppose DeVore's thread on After Hours "Lets All Laugh at People with Depression!" is immediately a sign of complete ignorance and bigotry, towards mental illness, yes?
Obviously, no - unless you are deliberately being lazy or ignorant, then you have to actually find out something about a sites reputation, in order to judge its credibility; what you're engaging in, is the fallacy of an Argument from Ignorance.

In this case, the site is nothing more than just a blank page, so yes - someone would have to be very ignorant, to think there is anything bad about that site - when all it would take to find out if it's bad, is to just type out the URL.

FA Hayek wrote: »

Again to quote you.

It seems you are spinning your previous posts but its there in black and white.

To attack the credibility of a source, and qualify as an Ad Hominem, you have to provide a valid argument attacking the credibility of a source, not just spout unbacked nonsense (which is just a smear, not even rising to 'Ad Hominem')...this is very basic stuff, I believe you're deliberately pretending not to 'get' this at this stage, seeing as it should be blindingly obvious to anyone.

FA Hayek wrote: »

Well, you stated earlier the following.

Clearly you missed the obvious, or that you actually didn't look it up at all.
George Soros was convicted in 2002 for insider trading by the French courts. A decision upheld by the High court of France and the European Court of Human Rights.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-10-06/soros-loses-human-rights-appeal-against-insider-trading-case

Given that the Koch brother were never convicted of such financial irregularities then perhaps they are more honourable, trustworthy and honest than someone with a criminal conviction, the the primary funder of rightwingwatch.org.

The Koch brothers are known for directly funding propaganda and proven lies through multiple think-tanks and front organizations, as well as interfering with the administration/running of organizations through influence from purse-strings - this directly puts into doubt, the credibility of any organization willingly accepting Koch funding.

Explain exactly, how Soros being convicted of insider trading, creates any indication, that he may influence the administration or editorial content of Right Wing Watch?

recedite

KomradeBishop wrote: »

.. that group is linked to racist anti-muslim type views - the founder is David Horowitz.

Here he is describing Palestinians in general as 'morally sick'....

Yeah, but we all know that jews and arabs don't get along very well together in the region today known as Israel, and formerly known as Palestine. Generally they hate each other. And America supports Israel because the US jewish lobby is so strong.

So here you are are calling the jews racist, because currently your pc viewpoint is focused on defending muslims.
But don't worry, this is a known glitch in the updated pc brain circuitry program. Its currently causing a schism in the UK Labour party. The half of the party who are deploying their pc powers to defend muslims against jewish "racists" find themselves in opposition with the other half who are defending jews against muslim "racists".

This is always the problem faced by the pc brigade when they find themselves defending the interests of some minority group who themselves represent intolerance. Its why the ultra liberal left have such problems with Islam and how to deal with it's proponents.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

From March, NewsThump reports that Psychiatric hospitals are filling up with time travellers sent back to kill Donald Trump:

http://newsthump.com/2016/03/03/psychiatric-hospitals-filling-up-with-time-travellers-sent-back-to-kill-donald-trump/

I can confirm that this is all true, I was sent back in time myself but I decided to stay here, because they are all idiots in the future.

Here's what happened ;There was a Golden Era after The Donald became US President, during which America became grate again. We landed on Mars, planted a flag, and invented a time machine. But after 8 years the Donald reached his term limit and had to resign. Things went downhill rapidly.

50 years later, during a famine, the High Celeb rediscovered the dusty old time machine and started sending people back in time to kill Trump, which was supposed to get the plants growing again. I was one of the first volunteers....

K-9

recedite wrote: »

Yeah, but we all know that jews and arabs don't get along very well together in the region today known as Israel, and formerly known as Palestine. Generally they hate each other. And America supports Israel because the US jewish lobby is so strong.

So here you are are calling the jews racist, because currently your pc viewpoint is focused on defending muslims.
But don't worry, this is a known glitch in the updated pc brain circuitry program. Its currently causing a schism in the UK Labour party. The half of the party who are deploying their pc powers to defend muslims against jewish "racists" find themselves in opposition with the other half who are defending jews against muslim "racists".

This is always the problem faced by the pc brigade when they find themselves defending the interests of some minority group who themselves represent intolerance. Its why the ultra liberal left have such problems with Islam and how to deal with it's proponents.

Sorry, but that post just reminds me of one of the Bishops in Fr. Ted! The Holy Relic episode.

recedite

No, I've never been a bishop. That would be ridiculous.

KomradeBishop

recedite wrote: »

Yeah, but we all know that jews and arabs don't get along very well together in the region today known as Israel, and formerly known as Palestine. Generally they hate each other. And America supports Israel because the US jewish lobby is so strong.

So here you are are calling the jews racist, because currently your pc viewpoint is focused on defending muslims.
But don't worry, this is a known glitch in the updated pc brain circuitry program. Its currently causing a schism in the UK Labour party. The half of the party who are deploying their pc powers to defend muslims against jewish "racists" find themselves in opposition with the other half who are defending jews against muslim "racists".

This is always the problem faced by the pc brigade when they find themselves defending the interests of some minority group who themselves represent intolerance. Its why the ultra liberal left have such problems with Islam and how to deal with it's proponents.

Huh? Where did I call Jews in general racist? That guy - David Horowitz - is a racist.

That's a pretty weird attempt at trying to force what I said, into a black and white narrative...

Pointing out that somebody is a racist, because he has said racist things, doesn't suddenly make you 'biased' as part of an Us vs Them dichotomy - just because I call out an Anti-Muslim/Anti-Palestinian guy for being racist, doesn't suddenly peg me as being on 'the other side' of that debate...

Christy42

recedite wrote: »

Yeah, but we all know that jews and arabs don't get along very well together in the region today known as Israel, and formerly known as Palestine. Generally they hate each other. And America supports Israel because the US jewish lobby is so strong.

So here you are are calling the jews racist, because currently your pc viewpoint is focused on defending muslims.
But don't worry, this is a known glitch in the updated pc brain circuitry program. Its currently causing a schism in the UK Labour party. The half of the party who are deploying their pc powers to defend muslims against jewish "racists" find themselves in opposition with the other half who are defending jews against muslim "racists".

This is always the problem faced by the pc brigade when they find themselves defending the interests of some minority group who themselves represent intolerance. Its why the ultra liberal left have such problems with Islam and how to deal with it's proponents.

Incredibly black and white. He called the racist racist. He said nothing about all Jews.

It is something many in the right don't seem to get about the left supporting Muslims who sometimes hold right wing views so let's explain it simply.

I feel that David Quinn getting beaten up in the street is wrong. I believe it would be wrong if he was denied aid needed for him or his family to survive or for him to be denied refugee status (if he needed it at aome point) simply because of his religion. I do not support David Quinn's views on abortion or gay marriage. Now replace David Quinn with hard line muslims and it should make sense.

BoatMad

This is always the problem faced by the pc brigade when they find themselves defending the interests of some minority group who themselves represent intolerance. Its why the ultra liberal left have such problems with Islam and how to deal with it's proponents.

There is no problem with Islam, the problem is with a small section of people claiming to be be fundamentalist Islamists who feel that the west intervention in the ME has caused great offence, terror and carnage and they seek revenge ( etc , and a simplification I know )

FA Hayek

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Explain exactly, how Soros being convicted of insider trading, creates any indication, that he may influence the administration or editorial content of Right Wing Watch?

The Koch brothers George Soros is known for directly funding propaganda and proven lies through multiple think-tanks and front organizations, as well as interfering with the administration/running of organizations through influence from purse-strings - this directly puts into doubt, the credibility of any organization willingly accepting Koch Soros funding

As I said before:

One billionaire* funding a website whom message I agree with - fine and dandy
One billionaire funding a website whom message I do not agree with - treat it with scepticism

*A billionaire who is also convicted of financial irregularities.

I find it odd to be honest that you did not find anything discredible about rightwingwatch.org. Surely you would have found out that one of its primary benefactors has a criminal conviction for insider trading. Unless of course you a) You lied and did not look at all b) Did look but deliberately left it out to strengthen your view point or c) find insider trading ok with your moral compass.

KomradeBishop

FA Hayek wrote: »

The Koch brothers George Soros is known for directly funding propaganda and proven lies through multiple think-tanks and front organizations, as well as interfering with the administration/running of organizations through influence from purse-strings - this directly puts into doubt, the credibility of any organization willingly accepting Koch Soros funding

Where is your proof of this?

If you claim something like that, stop wasting time, and go and find sources that prove that he tries to influence the administration and editorial decisions, of organizations he donates to.

Otherwise, he is not the same as the Koch's in that regard, and the rest of your post is just bollocks.

All you have is that he engaged in insider trading - which says nothing about his likelihood of interfering with the administration and/or editorial process, of organizations he donates to...


You keep trying to reduce it down to 'billionaire = bad', to push a false equivalence between the Koch's and Soros, except my criteria for criticizing the Koch's had nothing to do with them being billionaires - you know this though, and you're deliberately trying to sidestep it, by very flimsily just restating your original argument in different words, or making other flimsy unbacked claims (which you conveniently avoid backing up, until called on it).

Do you really think that will work, and that you won't just get called out on that? All that does is waste space/time.

Hotblack Desiato

BoatMad wrote: »

There is no problem with Islam

The problem is that it's much more recent than the other Abrahamic faiths, which have had a few sharp corners knocked off them along the way. Also unlike the bible its sacred text is explicitly stated to be the inerrant and final word of god; (as far as I am aware) there are much fewer if any disputes as to which text is canonical; and it is still studied in the same language in which it was written - all of which mean that there is much less scope for reinterpretation via translation and/or transliteration to gloss over awkward issues or produce schisms. Thousands if not tens of thousands of christian sects, a handful or two of muslim sects, and worse none of those sects have a central authority. So there is almost a market of extremism - if some imam preaches a 'purer' form of islam than you do, he might win over more followers, so while christianity in general has moved towards the more wishy-washy, islam has not.

511

BoatMad wrote: »

There is no problem with Islam, the problem is with a small section of people claiming to be be fundamentalist Islamists who feel that the west intervention in the ME has caused great offence, terror and carnage and they seek revenge ( etc , and a simplification I know )

Has ever it occurred to you Islamic fundamentalists exist because of Islam: http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-law.html

Sharia law is the law of Islam. The Sharia (also spelled Shariah or Shari'a) law is cast from the actions and words of Muhammad, which are called "Sunnah," and the Quran, which he authored

Have a read of Sharia law there and it will give you an idea of what type of person Muhammad, the inventor of Islam, was like. These are laws he created and ordered his followers to adhere.

The real problem here is people like you don't understand Islam and its history, so they just stupidly presume Islam is a pretty cool guy and doesn't harm anyone, except for all of the wars that have been caused by brainwashed followers which led to the deaths of millions people over the last 1400 years.

Hotblack Desiato

I'm sure billionbibles.org is entirely objective :pac:

511 wrote: »

all of the wars that have been caused by brainwashed followers which led to the deaths of millions people over the last 1400 years.

I think you'll find christianity leads the pack there by a decisive margin.

511

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'm sure billionbibles.org is entirely objective :pac:

If that's the case, then feel free the discredit it, rather than dismissing the page because of its source. Here is another source: http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034

As you can see from the quote below, Sharia law is based on the life of Muhammad.

he sayings, practices, and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed

I think you'll find christianity leads the pack there by a decisive margin.

Oh, really? That's wonderful news! It's just too bad your post can be effortlessly dismissed as whataboutery and is therefore a logical fallacy. What me to explain why?

Well, it's a simple as this: I wasn't discussing Christianity, we're debating that poster's comments about Islam; therefore, pointing the finger at Christianity's massacres doesn't not make Islam's massacres in anyway justifiable, nor am I defending Christianity, so bringing Christianity into this is irrelevant.

Absolam

511 wrote: »

The real problem here is people like you don't understand Islam and its history, so they just stupidly presume Islam is a pretty cool guy and doesn't harm anyone, except for all of the wars that have been caused by brainwashed followers which led to the deaths of millions people over the last 1400 years.

511 wrote: »

Oh, really? That's wonderful news! It's just too bad your post can be effortlessly dismissed as whataboutery and is therefore a logical fallacy. What me to explain why? Well, it's a simple as this: I wasn't discussing Christianity, we're debating that poster's comments about Islam; therefore, pointing the finger at Christianity's massacres doesn't not make Islam's massacres in anyway justifiable, nor am I defending Christianity, so bringing Christianity into this is irrelevant.

I think you may be a little astray in imagining anyone thinks Islam is a guy (though I am minded of an Australian politician who thought it was a place Muslims should go back to), but still if your intent is that 'people like you' should understand Islam and it's history, it's history includes Christian genocides. So it's not at all whataboutery to point out that Christianity has been responsible for far far more deaths than Islam, and the massacre of Muslims by Christians has most decidedly been a significant part of the history of Islam.

Now, no one can (and no one is trying to) say that this justifies 'Islam's' massacres, but the actions of Christians are far from irrelevant to the discussion.

BoatMad

511 wrote: »

The real problem here is people like you don't understand Islam and its history, so they just stupidly presume Islam is a pretty cool guy and doesn't harm anyone, except for all of the wars that have been caused by brainwashed followers which led to the deaths of millions people over the last 1400 years.

Sadly , it's people like you , coupled with access to Internet quotes that generate the fears around fundamentalism , whereas those like myself , that have taken the time to read around the subject , and therefore form an independent opinion , can at least , offer a educated discourse

All religious , or faith systems , offer the potential for radical fundamentalism, because by their nature , such belief systems are " interpretative " and interpretations differ.

Sharia law is equally subject to interpretation and itself has undergone many such re-interpretations , it's not an immutable series of dictates even as presented by some as so.

Fundamentalism always seeks a justification , peretrators of violence in support of such " fundamentalism " are particularly careful to wrap their actions in justifiable ( as they see it ) " logic ". Most humans are not " mindless" killers , even if it's convenient to paint them so.. They often commit very horrific acts of violence because they have a " rational " argument. ( in their view ) this is as much true f the horrific US involvement in Iraq , Irish republican " terrorism " or any of the numerous acts of " terror" that many so-called fundamentalists partake in.

In that regard, the US involvements in the ME is as much a result of US fundamentalism as is the Islamic backlash

recedite

Irish politicians belatedly jump on the anti-Trump bandwagon.
Just as their counterparts in other EU countries such as the UK are starting to distance themselves from their earlier anti-Trump rhetoric. The closer The Donald gets to the US presidency, the more foolish it is to make an enemy of him.

Christy42

recedite wrote: »

Irish politicians belatedly jump on the anti-Trump bandwagon.
Just as their counterparts in other EU countries such as the UK are starting to distance themselves from their earlier anti-Trump rhetoric. The closer The Donald gets to the US presidency, the more foolish it is to make an enemy of him.

Do you have a link to the politicians distancing themselves from anto Trump statements?

Surely a politician should stand by their beliefs? We complain about them being spineless a lot of the time (frequently because they are being spineless) so it would be refreshing if they stood their ground on an issue like this. If the Irish electorate want a pro Trump government they can elect them in.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

The closer The Donald gets to the US presidency, the more foolish it is to make an enemy of him.

It's not "jumping on the bandwagon" for people to call out idiocy and demagoguery when it appears. On the contrary, it would be good wonderful indeed if Mr Trump and the US electorate were to be left in no doubt whatsoever about what the world thinks of his incendiary rhetoric.

The same for the clowns currently leading the "leave" side of the UK referendum - and their aerobic explanations to the effect that the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals after it's insulted most of their trading partners, and after their trading partners have explained to them that no, the UK will do much better staying where it is.

That's not "bandwagoning", but reality. And the suggestion that people should keep quiet on the topic in order not to make enemies sounds a lot like an attempt to shut down debate.

JPNelsforearm

robindch wrote: »

It's not "jumping on the bandwagon" for people to call out idiocy and demagoguery when it appears. On the contrary, it would be good wonderful indeed if Mr Trump and the US electorate were to be left in no doubt whatsoever about what the world thinks of his incendiary rhetoric.

The same for the clowns currently leading the "leave" side of the UK referendum - and their aerobic explanations to the effect that the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals after it's insulted most of their trading partners, and after their trading partners have explained to them that no, the UK will do much better staying where it is.

That's not "bandwagoning", but reality. And the suggestion that people should keep quiet on the topic in order not to make enemies sounds a lot like an attempt to shut down debate.

Why should the US care what the rest of the world thinks? So a bunch of spineless neo liberals nearly wet themselves in their efforts to loudly proclaim their opposition to Trump, why should yanks take any notice? It is bandwagoning, or rather, virtue signalling, on behalf of EU politicians, showing how progressive and anti- insert liberal buzzword- they are. Varadkar is a wimp.

The UK should leave, business will continue as is, trade deals will be renegotiated, billions will not be tossed into the garbage on the basis of insults as you put it.

robindch

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

So a bunch of spineless neo liberals nearly wet themselves [...]

You've been warned once today already about the low standard of your posts, but it seems you didn't pay much attention to that warning.

For the avoidance of doubt - if this low standard continues, one of your friendly moderators will be delivering you some clue-stick leadership.