Unpopular Opinions - OP Updated with Threadban List 4/5/21

ohnonotgmail

Silentcorner wrote: »

I did participate on that thread, you are correct, and yes, I have never seen such massive public support for a sitting President, and that was reflected in his vote...

So popular he lost the popular vote in 2 presidential elections.

growleaves

By definition, one who blames the elites in charge for all the problems in an attempt to gain support with ordinary people (i.e. trump to a tee, the fact he just replaced Washington elites with his own scumbag elites is just too funny, yet all the trumpeters try and ignore this, he put his own kids in charge for heaven's sake)

The 'elites in charge' (including conventional Republican politicians) made it too easy to do that.

Trump wasn't much better perhaps but he at least he admitted that free trade had made Americans poorer and extended a tiny bit of sympathy. His grand idea (however flawed) was various kinds of protectionism. Its not like he was proposing to expropriate wealth from Democratic Party millionaires and give it to his supporters.

Easy to see how he could have been elected and either he or someone like him will be along again soon enough.

castletownman

Vicky Phelan apparently said in a newspaper interview that there should be a designated Minister for Women's Health.

She shouldn't be given the platform to spout such nonsense.

Antares35

castletownman wrote: »

Vicky Phelan apparently said in a newspaper interview that there should be a designated Minister for Women's Health.

She shouldn't be given the platform to spout such nonsense.

Just had a read of it there in the Irish Times. She also thinks that person needs to be a woman, because apparently you can't be a women's minister without having babies and periods and the menopause. Is there not more to women than their reproductive parts? Why does someone have to have had a period or a baby to be a good fit for such a position? I don't get it

astrofool

Silentcorner wrote: »

I did participate on that thread, you are correct, and yes, I have never seen such massive public support for a sitting President, and that was reflected in his vote...

I am not going to express an opinion on the man as he has left office, life moves on... and the mere mention of his name brings out the nutters who can't seem to get him out of their heads...

I don't yet have an opinion on Biden as I'll give him at least a year in office before I do...so I don't participate on those threads....and by the looks of it, the same heads are in there taking the predictable position on a man who has barely got his feet under the table like the zealots that they are!!!

So anyone who challenges the Elites as you call them is a populist, so the Elites can't be touched? I'm of the view the bureaucrats that govern us need a good kicking every now or then...no harm in it!

I thought Brexit would be a disaster, but I have an open mind and we will see in a year or two how it goes for them...but it is funny to see the zealots obsess over it....give them a year or two, then take the position, we Irish have a tendency to go in all or nothing on topics we don't fully understand...if the economy booms then it looks like we were all fed a load of nonsense about the doomsday senarios predicted when the Brits voted to leave the EU.

It could well turn out to be a very good move, or not, time will tell, I know quiet a few guys over there who are full sure it was a great move, the electorate are still voting for the Conservatives, in growing numbers, that is telling us a lot....the same voters that have abandoned the Labour Party.

The Brits had a choice again in elections last week, they decided not to vote for the Anti Semites peddling Identity Politics....that is telling you something too, but you need to think Johnson is some charismatic cult leader (like you think Trump is)...because it just doesn't make sense in your brain to think otherwise!!!!!

Great opinions, good to see you've abandoned trump, post them on the relevant threads and people will debate them with you rather than try to silence you.

The people finding it hard are those who are sticking dogmatically to cultish populist leaders, they don't have opinions of their own and will post links, memes or how great they feel after reading some of their leaders thoughts, they usually spiral down into name calling and get themselves banned. There were multiple people on the trump thread who basically had a 4 year life during trumps reign, then stopped posting when he lost, they will say they were cancelled, they weren't, they backed the wrong horse and wouldn't back down afterwards and left rather than face the loss. Since then it's all been about fake elections and conspiracies which no one is taking seriously.

Just on the elites, these often don't exist, populist leaders will make them up as they need them to exist, the EU didn't force Britain into anything, the Washington elites was all made up by trump (and he ended up draining his own cabal instead of Washington anyway). Certainly the "elites" should be challenged, but they at least need to be defined properly with evidence why they are the elites and what measures need to be taken rather than just a bogeyman to try and win an election using FUD.

Silentcorner

astrofool wrote: »

Great opinions, good to see you've abandoned trump, post them on the relevant threads and people will debate them with you rather than try to silence you.

The people finding it hard are those who are sticking dogmatically to cultish populist leaders, they don't have opinions of their own and will post links, memes or how great they feel after reading some of their leaders thoughts, they usually spiral down into name calling and get themselves banned. There were multiple people on the trump thread who basically had a 4 year life during trumps reign, then stopped posting when he lost, they will say they were cancelled, they weren't, they backed the wrong horse and wouldn't back down afterwards and left rather than face the loss. Since then it's all been about fake elections and conspiracies which no one is taking seriously.

Just on the elites, these often don't exist, populist leaders will make them up as they need them to exist, the EU didn't force Britain into anything, the Washington elites was all made up by trump (and he ended up draining his own cabal instead of Washington anyway). Certainly the "elites" should be challenged, but they at least need to be defined properly with evidence why they are the elites and what measures need to be taken rather than just a bogeyman to try and win an election using FUD.

I've moved on....that is what normal people do.

I can't take you serious, you think Boris Johnson has cast a cultish spell over the British people using his charisma....I gotta tell you, having spent quite some time in Britain over they years...they ain't that stupid.

Which is another thing....assuming that people who don't vote they way you want them to are stupid or have fallen under the spell of a "cultish" leader is merely intellectual narcissism....how any Irish person can believe that they know what is best for the ordinary people of the UK or US is beyond me!!!

Pussyhands

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and boy did you nail that.

I wonder.

NZ, the holy grail of progressives, rejected legalising it.

Just watching reeling in the years last night reminded me 1.2m voted for gay marriage, 750k voted against. That's not that decisive and that was for something that had support from nearly every major organisation.

If it was legalised we'd definitely get loads of stoners moving here just for weed. Just like loads of irish lads I know moved to Canada for the weed.

Black market is still thriving in Canada btw.

Mad_maxx

Pussyhands wrote: »

I wonder.

NZ, the holy grail of progressives, rejected legalising it.

Just watching reeling in the years last night reminded me 1.2m voted for gay marriage, 750k voted against. That's not that decisive and that was for something that had support from nearly every major organisation.

If it was legalised we'd definitely get loads of stoners moving here just for weed. Just like loads of irish lads I know moved to Canada for the weed.

Black market is still thriving in Canada btw.

How about legalising it as medicine for people in constant pain?

ohnonotgmail

Pussyhands wrote: »

I wonder.

NZ, the holy grail of progressives, rejected legalising it.

Just watching reeling in the years last night reminded me 1.2m voted for gay marriage, 750k voted against. That's not that decisive and that was for something that had support from nearly every major organisation.

If it was legalised we'd definitely get loads of stoners moving here just for weed. Just like loads of irish lads I know moved to Canada for the weed.

Black market is still thriving in Canada btw.

legalising drugs isn't just about cannabis.

Pussyhands

Mad_maxx wrote: »

How about legalising it as medicine for people in constant pain?

Not given it much thought or read into it.

But I don't think when people say it should be legalised, they mean for medicinal use.

Pussyhands

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

legalising drugs isn't just about cannabis.

Go on?

ohnonotgmail

Pussyhands wrote: »

Go on?

Not the thread for it. we already have an excellent case study in how decriminalising drugs leads to a reduction in harm. that example is portugal. They went from the highest rate of drug addicts in europe to one of the lowest.

lazygal

lazygal wrote: »

Cannabis shouldn't be legalised.

I don't think the current set up is particularly useful or helpful but the narrative especially in the States is ridiculous. The "Oh it's harmless" stuff is complete nonsense. And of course the idea that use won't increase if legalised and made cheaper.

stoneill

lazygal wrote: »

Cannabis shouldn't be legalised.

There is a subtle difference between decriminalising and legalising.
I would be in favour of decriminalising cannabis up to a certain amount as its for personal use.
Once above that limit you get prosecuted for sale and supply.

Pussyhands

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Not the thread for it. we already have an excellent case study in how decriminalising drugs leads to a reduction in harm. that example is portugal. They went from the highest rate of drug addicts in europe to one of the lowest.

Legalising drugs means allowing it.

Decriminalising means you're not penalised for having consumable amounts.

Massive difference.

ohnonotgmail

Pussyhands wrote: »

Legalising drugs means allowing it.

Decriminalising means you're not penalised for having consumable amounts.

Massive difference.

Legalise cannabis and decriminalise everything else.

JimmyVik

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Not the thread for it. we already have an excellent case study in how decriminalising drugs leads to a reduction in harm. that example is portugal. They went from the highest rate of drug addicts in europe to one of the lowest.

I lived in Portugal for a while.
It has actually gotten worse.
Its just that most of it is not recorded now because it has been decriminalized, so of course the numbers look good.

FileNotFound

Pussyhands wrote: »

Not given it much thought or read into it.

But I don't think when people say it should be legalised, they mean for medicinal use.

I'd say your right and in reality there are better drugs for pain in the pharmacy.

So that legalise for medicinal is always skating on thin ice.

ohnonotgmail

JimmyVik wrote: »

I lived in Portugal for a while.
It has actually gotten worse.
Its just that most of it is not recorded now because it has been decriminalized, so of course the numbers look good.

can you provide a source for that information that isn't you?

Experience_day

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

can you provide a source for that information that isn't you?

Do I count? There is a clear and obvious problem with drugs in Lisbon.

ohnonotgmail

Experience_day wrote: »

Do I count? There is a clear and obvious problem with drugs in Lisbon.

what are you comparing that to? are you comparing it to the period where 1 in 100 portugese people was a heroin addict?

magicbastarder

walking down a street in lisbon city centre at night is quite the experience. in 10 minutes, you'll probably be openly offered drugs more times than i have in my life, in dublin.

JimmyVik

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

can you provide a source for that information that isn't you?

Speak to some families over there who have been ruined by the decriminalization and ask them what they think of it.


Or even easier if the fancy take you.


Bring your teenage kids to Lisbon and stand across the road for a few minutes. Watch how many scum bags offer them cocaine.



Or if you are worried about your kids, you can just walk 500 meters along the street yourself and listen to the offers.

JimmyVik

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what are you comparing that to? are you comparing it to the period where 1 in 100 portugese people was a heroin addict?

Also not true.

ohnonotgmail

JimmyVik wrote: »

Speak to some families over there who have been ruined by the decriminalization and ask them what they think of it.


Or even easier if the fancy take you.


Bring your teenage kids to Lisbon and stand across the road for a few minutes. Watch how many scum bags offer them cocaine.



Or if you are worried about your kids, you can just walk 500 meters along the street yourself and listen to the offers.

so just anecdotes then. The studies done say different.

FileNotFound

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so just anecdotes then. The studies done say different.

Personal experience - anecdotal evidence is not always to be sniffed at.
I am sure that these things have both positives and negatives.

magicbastarder

JimmyVik wrote: »

Also not true.

says 1 in 100 here:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it

ohnonotgmail

FileNotFound wrote: »

Personal experience - anecdotal evidence is not always to be sniffed at.
I am sure that these things have both positives and negatives.

an anecdote is personal experience.

FileNotFound

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

an anecdote is personal experience.

Yes that is what I said. Maybe it was not clear.

JimmyVik

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so just anecdotes then. The studies done say different.

I can tell from that you are someone who hasnt spent 5 minutes in Lisbon yourself.