**** Elections thread *****

[bigred]

But we're not all the same. I'm not the same as a Muslim, or hispanic, or Chineseman. I'm also not the same as my white British next door neighbour. He's gay for a start. He also doesn't have long hair. He's older than me. I really don't tink there's another person on the planet that I'm the same as. I'm fucking special, me.

Until we recognise that we are ALL DIFFERENT, in spite of race, gender, dick size, hair colour, smoking habits etc, we cannot progress as a society.

Poor choice of words on my part. I think a better phrase would be we're all human. Celebrate our differences!

[OngBonga]

People are being lumped into groups based on one category (e.g., religion, race) which is divisive.

Trump isn't alone in doing this. Clinton is equally as guilty. So is pretty much every politician. So too for the average person. It's ingrained in our culture.

Our culture is divisive. It's no good pointing at individuals, that only serves to further the divide.

[Poopadoop]

Trump isn't alone in doing this. Clinton is equally as guilty. So is pretty much every politician. So too for the average person. It's ingrained in our culture.

Our culture is divisive. It's no good pointing at individuals, that only serves to further the divide.

There are different degrees to which different people do this. Hard to argue Trump isn't further towards the divisive end of the spectrum than most with his language. Clinton never railed against mexicans, muslims or whatever did she?

[OngBonga]

There's different degrees of subtlety. It's there in us all because it's indoctrinated into us. Most of us are guilty of what could be called positive racism. But it's still racism, it's still divisive because it compartmentalises people. (I don't often get to use that word!)

He's not exactly strong on keeping any of his promises so far.

He's not prez yet. And to be quite honest, the only promise I give a fuck about is foreign policy. If that doesn't change once he's in a position to force his will, then I'll be anti-Trump pretty quickly.

[Poopadoop]

There's different degrees of subtlety. It's there in us all because it's indoctrinated into us. Most of us are guilty of what could be called positive racism. But it's still racism, it's still divisive because it compartmentalises people. (I don't often get to use that word!)

We're hard-wired to think in terms of 'us' and 'them'. It's a psychological fact. The way to unite a nation is therefore to make the nation the 'us' and someone else the 'them'. The 'them' can be terrorists or communists or whatever you want, it really doesn't matter too much for the sake of national unity as long as they're outside the country.

What divides people is to make part of the nation 'us' and another part 'them'. That's where American politics has gone wrong imo. It's always one faction vs. another, be it whites vs. browns, protestant vs. catholic (or Christian vs. muslim), natives vs. immigrants, republican vs. democrat, etc..

A real uniter would work to point out the similarities that all Americans have - call it American values or whatever you want. I believe that Americans are in large part, against outright racism, for example, and for things like freedom of speech.

It's one thing to exploit differences as an election ploy. But when you're president, you've already won. You don't need to then hire people like Bannon to make the differences even more evident. He doesn't actually represent the values of the people as a whole, only a fringe element. That's divisive.

[OngBonga]

Clinton never railed against mexicans, muslims or whatever did she?

No, but she tried to manipulate them by playing the racism card every time Trump said something that could be conceived as divisive. She did her best to ensure that every woman, black person, hispanic and homosexual should hate Trump and everything he stands for.

Hillary should have focussed entirely on her own affairs, and ignored Trump. Had she done that, she might well have won. However, she just came across as a huge fucking hypocrite, because that's exactly what she is. Trump came across as someone who will speak his mind, regardless of how it makes him look. People respect that from politicians, it's a break from the norm.

Maybe he's a hypocrite too, time will tell.

[Poopadoop]

Hillary should have focussed entirely on her own affairs, and ignored Trump. Had she done that, she might well have won. However, she just came across as a huge fucking hypocrite, because that's exactly what she is.

I agree. She ran about the worst campaign you could possibly run. She didn't have rallies and when she did, no-one showed up. Her campaign was all about bashing Trump, never about anything positive she would do. The fact that she still almost won shows just how badly Trump is viewed by Joe Average American. When the best thing most people can say about one candidate is 'Theother guy is even worse', it's not a happy situation.

[OngBonga]

I believe that Americans are in large part, against outright racism, for example, and for things like freedom of speech.

You do realise these are in conflict with one another?

[Poopadoop]

You do realise these are in conflict with one another?

You're saying the right to free speech keeps people from expressing views that are against outright racism?

[OngBonga]

You're saying the right to free speech keeps people from expressing views that are against outright racism?

No. I'm saying if you believe in free speech, you have to respect another person's right to say racist things.

The idea we can have free speech with limitations is dumb. It's either on or off, one or zero, free speech or limited speech. There is no middle ground.

[Poopadoop]

No. I'm saying if you believe in free speech, you have to respect another person's right to say racist things.

The idea we can have free speech with limitations is dumb. It's either on or off, one or zero, free speech or limited speech. There is no middle ground.

Why is there no middle ground? In fact we all live in the middle ground.

There obviously has to be limits where one right conflicts with another. Society can't allow a black person to follow you around all day shouting 'honky' in your ear, for example, even if stopping him from doing it means limiting free speech. Because it conflicts with your right to go about your life without being harassed and/or subjected to hate.

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

It should be noted that the incentive for why the media would attack Bannon so hard is that he is their worst enemy. He is direct competition to them and he has been beating them. The icing of the cake is that he has Trump's ear, and the signs are that they will drain the swamp, which includes exposing the corrupt media for shills they are. They want Bannon gone because he's bad for their business. It is unlikely to have much to do with any of Bannon's actual stances on anything relevant to the people of the country.

[OngBonga]

I don't think poop really understands what "free" means.

[wufwugy]

Trump's first actions as President-Elect have been going on a "confidence tour". Many major world country leaders are saying how they have the utmost confidence in him after their first meetings/talks. This is the best thing he could be doing right now and their statements are very good for the world economy.

In case anybody has doubts about how important confidence is to the economy, I'm doing my capstone on the idea that in mid-October 2008, the Federal Reserve lost credibility to maintain its implicit nominal GDP target, which resulted in a collapse of confidence, which resulted in the financial crisis and began the Great Recession. So, yeah, it's a big deal.

[wufwugy]

btw im not calling you a crybully. you're smart and just explaining things as you see them.

[wufwugy]

Actually, you know what, I think that Trump never loses 2020. I'll take any bet anybody wants to make (given reasonable odds), as long as it's not money (that shit makes it too stressful).

There's a secret to why he will win. I know the secret.

[wufwugy]

Jeff Sessions named AG. Sanctuary cities dead.

[wufwugy]

I don't want to understate that it is harder for blacks to integrate simply due to appearance. I think it is MUCH harder for them for that reason.

But I also think the same rules apply. Victimization will not yield positive results. No matter how hard it is, the route for blacks to overcome is the Booker T Washington route.

[wufwugy]

^^Adding: we've tried the other route. It hasn't worked. Things are so bad for black communities today that the gains won since slavery have virtually all evaporated.

[wufwugy]

^^Actually, I should word that differently, because it's not true that the gains since slavery have evaporated. What has happened is that some gains have been made while other things are even worse than during slavery. One example is how the black family survived everything, survived slavery, survived Jim Crow, but did not survive welfare and the drug war and more indirectly victimization politics. Also, there certainly have been gains since slavery, but many of those have been lost. An example is how many black areas got a whole lot better after slavery yet are today ghettos. Harlem, for example.

[a500lbgorilla]

Sadly



My wish was to live in boring times.

I don't think that's gonna pan out.

[wufwugy]

Sadly



My wish was to live in boring times.

I don't think that's gonna pan out.

The "bankerism" that is causing the economic doldrums that Dore discusses is not corruption so much as it's the failure of central banks to keep up the nominal growth trend. It's a failure of the Fed, ECB, and the BoJ to correctly diagnose their contractionary monetary policy. There are other issues as well, but they're all pretty small beans compared to monetary policy. Money is king. No kind of fiscal or regulatory policy can do much of anything to boost nominal growth if monetary policy does not allow/drive it. This was the same problem that created and deepened the Great Depression. It took many decades after the GD was finished for economists to begin correctly diagnosing it as a "monetary mechanism gone wrong" (Bernanke 2002). One may think that the lesson was learned and that central banks are held to task on monetary policy, but that is not the case. Nobody knows quite why they're let off the hook, but it probably has to do with fear of stagflation, political desires for fiscal and regulatory solutions, and relying on interest rates as a measure of monetary policy (they're not reliable).

The problem appears to be many other things, like trade and labor and banks, because that's what happens when money goes wrong. It's like if you have a bridge and you add more and more weight until it breaks. It will break at a specific point on the bridge first. This doesn't mean the bridge collapsed because it was faulty at that point. The bridge collapsed because too much weight was put on it. Money is like that weight in the economy. It affects everything, and that which breaks will appear faulty on its own, but the truth is that it wouldn't have broken if bad monetary policy wasn't crushing it.

[wufwugy]

I'm not looking too much into it, but if the Comet Ping Pong pizza James Alefantis DC child molestation ring thing ends up having legs, I wouldn't be surprised.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not looking too much into it, but if the Comet Ping Pong pizza James Alefantis DC child molestation ring thing ends up having legs, I wouldn't be surprised.

It's actually clever of the alt-right to come up with something both remotely plausible and unfalsifiable. Usually they're good at the latter but not so much at the former. Shows they're getting smarter - good for them.

[Savy]

What exactly is alt-right? I heard it mentioned on TV the other day and for TV to be culturally ahead of me was pretty upsetting.

[Poopadoop]

Short for 'alternative right'. My understanding is it's people who don't think mainstream Republicanism is far enough right. They also seem to be good at finding conspiracies everywhere.

[Savy]

Short for 'alternative right'. My understanding is it's people who don't think mainstream Republicanism is far enough right. They also seem to be good at finding conspiracies everywhere.

So like the tea party?

[Poopadoop]

So like the tea party?

Think so, but not really knowledgeable on the topic. Someone else must know.

[Poopadoop]

Some of it is pretty entertaining actually:



My favourite part is when he 'accidentally gives himself away' by mentioning the reptilian side of the brain lol.

[wufwugy]

Here's what the alt-right is: nothing.

"It" is an ex post facto pejorative created by the media to explain both Trump support and why Trump supporters suck at the same time. Nobody in this non-existent group thinks of themselves as alt-right (except for Milo and a couple others selling a product). I would be considered "alt-right" according to the most sophisticated answer about what it is you can get, yet I am not alt-right. The sophisticated answer can't even explain much about it in the first place.

The "alt" part of the "alt-right" comes more the media trying to make sense of internet shitposters from /pol/ and r/the_donald. They're pretty left on lots of stuff. The people pushing the idea of an "alt-right' are the same people who think Pepe is a Nazi frog.

[wufwugy]

Milo probably might not even use the word anymore. As somebody who is neck deep in "alt-right" communities and leading personalities, trust me, you're not missing out on any knowledge by not knowing what it is. It's nothing but more crappy journalism.

[wufwugy]

[Poopadoop]

Many people would like to see @Nigel_Farage represent Great Britain as their Ambassador to the United States. He would do a great job!

Lol, yeah not gonna happen Donnykins. Sorry mate.

[wufwugy]

Maybe not that specific title, but statements by British political leaders suggest that they view Farage as a quality liaison to Trump.

[Poopadoop]

Maybe not that specific title, but statements by British political leaders suggest that they view Farage as a quality liaison to Trump.

First of all, it's not his place to tell the UK who to appoint as an ambassador. He's either too stupid to realise he's totally out of line or he doesn't care or both.

Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British ambassador to Washington, said he was baffled by the tweet. “UK ambassador in DC exists to defend UK interests in US, not US interests in UK,” he tweeted. “Can’t have foreign presidents deciding who our [ambassador] should be.”

Second, no UK political leader thinks Farage would be a good ambassador to anything, apart from Farage himself. The man has ran for parliament (UK equivalent of congress) seven times, and lost every time. So the public doesn't even think he belongs in the government, never mind a key post and definitely NOT as the face of the UK in the US.

[Poopadoop]

When Nigel met Donald.

At the meeting, Farage spoke to the new president-elect about putting the bust of Winston Churchill back in the Oval Office, while Trump encouraged Farage to oppose wind farms, which he felt marred the views from his Scottish golf courses.

Man of the people. And it only gets better:

Andy Wigmore, a communications officer for one of the groups campaigning to leave the EU who was at the meeting alongside Farage, told the Daily Express: “We covered a lot of ground during the hour-long meeting we had.

“But one thing Mr Trump kept returning to was the issue of wind farms.

[wufwugy]

About the alt-right thing. It's confusing and nobody knows what "it" is. I dislike the term because it explains nothing and is misapplied.

If you find circles of people that call themselves alt-right, they are pretty white nationalist and their communities are tiny. These people make up probably <5% of those the media calls the alt-right. The tea party connection is through Andrew Breitbart and Bannon, since they probably in part identified with the tea party and their site is one of the main collections of Trump supporters. There is no coalition of people that makes up an alt-right. The term is mostly useless and probably as soon as Trump is gone it will too be gone. The irony of this is that Trump support and the alt-right don't overlap as much as the media wants to think.

[wufwugy]

One reason the media calls it the alt-right is because it's not Christian right and it's not moderate right. So they think it must be some other rising force of the right. But it's not. Lots of those said to be in this group are Democrats and Sanders supporters, a lot are not conservative. If Trump ran as a Democrat he would have a similar coalition of voters. The funny thing is that Trump's stated agenda for the beginning of his term is very similar to what a lot of Sanders people want: ethics reform on lobby, America-first trade changes, no tax reform, no dissolving of agencies.

Even though his agenda for the first part of his term is not my ideal all around philosophy, it's very consistent with Trump's stated goal of doubling (or even tripling) real gdp growth rate. He probably intends to get to tax and more in depth legislative reform on regulations and healthcare after the economy is growing much better than it has under Obama. Even though those things grow the economy, in the very very short term it is better to focus on other things that don't involve any reduction in government spending.

[OngBonga]

So the public doesn't even think he belongs in the government, never mind a key post and definitely NOT as the face of the UK in the US.

This is a flawed conclusion for many reasons. First of all, he got voted into the EU Parliament, which shows the public do see him as someone capable of holding a key post. Secondly, Farage was the leader of a right-wing party that a great many people couldn't stomach a vote for. I like Farage a great deal but he was never getting my vote as leader of UKIP.

Farage certainly has a role to play in British politics. I would definitely approve of him becoming UK ambassdor to USA.

[Poopadoop]

This is a flawed conclusion for many reasons. First of all, he got voted into the EU Parliament, which shows the public do see him as someone capable of holding a key post. Secondly, Farage was the leader of a right-wing party that a great many people couldn't stomach a vote for. I like Farage a great deal but he was never getting my vote as leader of UKIP.

The second reason you mention is a perfect argument in favour of my conclusion, not against it.

The first reason though is a valid one, and so I need to qualify what I said. He was useful to have in the EU. But this isn't a job at the EU, it's an ambassador post. Two completely different things. Add to that the fact that he's like a puppy to Donald and he wouldn't be effective imo.

Basically it's one far right guy saying 'send me your far right guy because we agree on lots of things. Never mind your country largely isn't oriented that way, it's what i want'.

Either way, it ain't gonna happen.

Edit: It also shows how much of an amateur Donald is when it comes for foreign affairs. The fact that he even makes the suggestion shows he's clueless about the UK, and about how international diplomacy works in general.

[OngBonga]

Well it isn't going to happen because he's not a Conservative.

The second point I made, it shows that his party was the problem, not him. Certainly that's my point of view. To vote for UKIP isn't just to vote for Farage, it's a vote for some rather unsavoury members and policies. Just because I wouldn't vote for Farage as leader of UKIP, doesn't mean I can't ever vote for him as leader of another party, or as an independant.

I'll say this... if he were leader of the Conservative party, he'd win by a landslide.

[Poopadoop]

Well it isn't going to happen because he's not a Conservative.

That's one reason. Another is he has no experience. A third is he doesn't represent what the country as a whole stands for. A fourth is that making him ambassador would be putting us in a subservient position to Trump, and that would be a dumb move diplomatically. I can probably think of about ten more good reasons if i spent the time on it.

The second point I made, it shows that his party was the problem, not him. Certainly that's my point of view. To vote for UKIP isn't just to vote for Farage, it's a vote for some rather unsavoury members and policies. Just because I wouldn't vote for Farage as leader of UKIP, doesn't mean I can't ever vote for him as leader of another party, or as an independant.

I'll say this... if he were leader of the Conservative party, he'd win by a landslide.

Well, no it doesn't work that way. If you're leader of a party you're meant to be steering that ship. You don't get to just dissociate yourself from some of the unsavoury characters in your party while keeping them in your party. By allowing such people in your party, your tacitly endorsing their expressed views.

[OngBonga]

Edit: It also shows how much of an amateur Donald is when it comes for foreign affairs. The fact that he even makes the suggestion shows he's clueless about the UK.

Again, you're jumping to conclusions. He might not be being clueless, he could be being smart. Have you any idea what motivated Trump to make those comments? Surely he knows it's not his decision. Equally he knows that Farage is disliked by the ruling party here in the UK.

What Trump has done is raised the profile further of someone who the British leaders do not like. I have no idea why he's done that, but I'm not defaulting to "he's stupid", because he's shown over the last year or so that he isn't stupid. He knows exactly what he's doing.

[Poopadoop]

Again, you're jumping to conclusions. He might not be being clueless, he could be being smart. Have you any idea what motivated Trump to make those comments? Surely he knows it's not his decision. Equally he knows that Farage is disliked by the ruling party here in the UK.

What Trump has done is raised the profile further of someone who the British leaders do not like. I have no idea why he's done that, but I'm not defaulting to "he's stupid", because he's shown over the last year or so that he isn't stupid. He knows exactly what he's doing.

There's plenty of examples of him saying and doing things that hurt him politically. You can try to fanboysplain all of them as somehow being clever on some higher level, but they're not.

[Poopadoop]

Don't forget he only won the election because he was running against someone who was completely hopeless as a candidate, and someone anyone else would have almost certainly stomped, all while losing the popular vote at the same time. So before you sing his praises too much, keep that in mind.

[OngBonga]

Don't forget he only won the election because he was running against someone who was completely hopeless as a candidate, and someone anyone else would have almost certainly stomped, all while losing the popular vote at the same time. So before you sing his praises too much, keep that in mind.

Well I'm just still glad that Hillary didn't get the job. I'm still of the opinion that this is the better of two evils. My mood hasn't shifted from hope to despair yet. It probably will.

[Poopadoop]

Surely he knows it's not his decision.

Why would you assume he knows that?

[OngBonga]

Why would you assume he knows that?

Because even I know it.

[Poopadoop]

Because even I know it.

Not a good reason. And I bet you never actually thought about it until today for that matter. Just like Trump.

[Poopadoop]

What I meant by subservient is that it would be akin to saying 'here's the guy you asked for, sir'. Not a good move.

Basically, by saying what he did, Donald just guaranteed Farage will never get the job. His chances went from < 1% to 0.

[OngBonga]

Not a good reason. And I bet you never actually thought about it until today for that matter. Just like Trump.

You're just talking out of your arse now. Have you stolen my weed?

I never thought about whose responsibility it is to employ ambassadors? Of course not, I'm not a government minister. That doesn't mean I am totally clueless as to how these things are done. My favourite blogger is a former ambassador.

Our ambassadors are employed by the government. Therefore, it is the government's responsibility to employ those they deem fit for the role. Maybe the Queen can technically have a say, I'm not sure about that. But it's obviously not a decision for foreign governments.

[OngBonga]

Experience? Who has experience of being an ambassador? Not many ambassadors when they get the job. He has experience in European government, and as a well-known British politician, which incidentally is a lot more experience that Trump himself. He has enough experience for the job, considering there is only a handful of people who are better qualified. This is a ridiculous point to make.

He doesn't represent what you think the country stands for, or what the ruling Conservative party think the country stands for, but I think you'd be surprised at how much popular appeal he has. He certainly represents the views of a lot of people. The fact UKIP have demoted the Lib Dems into the realm of minor party shows just how much appeal he has.

A fourth is that making him ambassador would be putting us in a subservient position to Trump, and that would be a dumb move diplomatically.

Do you really think that Farage is a man who would become subservient to anybody? I can argue equally that the reverse would happen, that Trump would become subservient to farage, and it would be an equally ridiculous thing to claim.

I can probably think of about ten more good reasons if i spent the time on it.

Please do.

Well, no it doesn't work that way. If you're leader of a party you're meant to be steering that ship. You don't get to just dissociate yourself from some of the unsavoury characters in your party while keeping them in your party. By allowing such people in your party, your tacitly endorsing their expressed views.

This is a fair point. But you have to get inside Farage's head to say that he is responsible for the unsavoury views of his party. His only goal was to get the UK out of the EU. That was his sole political ambition. He realised that he needed to turn the cheek regarding some of UKIP's members and their comments and actions in order to focus on his ambition. Once we voted to leave the EU, he quit UKIP.

It can also be argued that if you hold this view, then every leader of any party therefore is responsible for the actions and views of the party's members. There are racists in the Conservative party. Does that make May a racist? No, of course not. Her actions determine that, not the opinions of people in her party.

There's plenty of examples of him saying and doing things that hurt him politically. You can try to fanboysplain all of them as somehow being clever on some higher level, but they're not.

Well he won, so he is smarter than everyone thought he was a year ago when people said he was a joke.

[Poopadoop]

Well he won, so he is smarter than everyone thought he was a year ago when people said he was a joke.

Many people, myself included, still think he's a joke. It's just not as funny now that he's in power.

[wufwugy]

Farage could even be thought of as a golden goose for the UK regarding Trump. The UK is in a position more than probably any other country to benefit by the actions of the Trump presidency. Trump likes Brexit, he likes Farage, he wants to renegotiate trade....guess who he's gonna wanna trade a good deal more with? The UK. That also is what you guys want. Farage as ambassador could be very important in deepening trade ties between the US and UK.

[wufwugy]

UK loves The Nige Man. How do I know? Because there have been fewer greater burns in all politics than: "You have the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk. The question I wanna ask is 'who are you?'"

[OngBonga]

UK loves The Nige Man. How do I know? Because there have been fewer greater burns in all politics than: "You have the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk. The question I wanna ask is 'who are you?'"

Nige in Europe is one of the best things that ever happened to the world.

[Poopadoop]

UK loves The Nige Man. How do I know? Because there have been fewer greater burns in all politics than: "You have the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk. The question I wanna ask is 'who are you?'"

Yes they love him so much they refused to give him a seat in parliament seven times in a row. Obviously they were saving him for a greater destiny - Trump's lapdog.

[Poopadoop]

Lol Farage is not going to be the ambassador. Wuf you are living in a bigly dream world.

[wufwugy]

Lol Farage is not going to be the ambassador. Wuf you are living in a bigly dream world.

I'm not saying he is. I'm saying that the UK government is in a situation where the best option for the UK is to make him ambassador. We'll see if they do it.

[Jack Sawyer]

Trump, the guy who has to fight ISIS, is now engaged in a twitter beef with the cast of some Broadway musical. Talk about priorities.

Plus, this

[wufwugy]

Trump, the guy who has to fight ISIS, is now engaged in a twitter beef with the cast of some Broadway musical. Talk about priorities.

Plus, this

Part of why he does this is because it discredits the media. Every day in the media is a "new twitter scandal" regarding Trump, which is exactly the way Trump wants it since it keeps the media from covering anything meaningful and in the rare event that the media do, they'll not have much credibility.

[a500lbgorilla]

Trump, the guy who has to fight ISIS, is now engaged in a twitter beef with the cast of some Broadway musical. Talk about priorities.

Plus, this

He's still missing a leg, I think.

Conservatives were tired of sucking shit, and they're glad we're sucking shit now.

[OngBonga]

ITT a Canadian knows who the British public loves more than the British do.

[Poopadoop]

ITT a Canadian knows who the British public loves more than the British do.

I know he's lost 7 straight elections to parliament. Not a sign of popularity afaik.

And i've lived here 14 years. Not like I just got off the boat.

[OngBonga]

It's a good job elections aren't popularity contests.

[Poopadoop]

Since when?

You liking someone doesn't make them popular in the whole country.

[OngBonga]

It's a good job I'm not the only person who likes Farage.

[Poopadoop]

Ok Ong he's a national hero. You win.

[OngBonga]

I think he might actually be. Certainly he is with those who voted to leave the EU, which, might I remind you, was over half of those who bothered to vote.

[Poopadoop]

Yes because the only reason they voted Brexit was because Farage the UKIP leader was pushing it, nothing else.

[OngBonga]

I reckon more people in England like Farage more than Andy Murray.

[Poopadoop]

I reckon more people in England like Farage more than Andy Murray.

If we're talking non-sequiturs, he's also more popular than brussel sprouts. Maybe he can get either Murray or brussel sprouts to run against him in the next election. Might be close, but I think he could win maybe.

[OngBonga]

Once again, poop confusing popularity with electoral success.

Yes because the only reason they voted Brexit was because Farage the UKIP leader was pushing it, nothing else.

This isn't the point. He wasn't the reason people voted to leave, but he played a key role in making the referendum happen. Those who wanted to leave recognise that. Farage is an immensely popular man with those who hated the EU and heard him speak in their parliament. And that is a lot more people than you seem to think.

Some people just don't seem to learn, do they? First Brexit happened, then Trump. Two things that we were told would not happen, they happened. Why? Well they happened because people voted for it. Why did people think it wouldn't happen? Media.

You think Farage is unpopular because the media portray him as some kind of smug racist. We're not falling for it. That's why Brexit happened. The proof is right there. It happened. So why do you think that Farage is unpopular? Are all your friends left wing hipsters who think open door immigration is a national obligation?

[Poopadoop]

Once again, poop confusing popularity with electoral success.

I know, it's crazy right? Judging a politician's popularity by how many people vote for him! Next I'll be judging a car model's popularity by how many they sell in a year...

By your logic, since he's popular with you and your ilk, and he championed a cause that narrowly won a referendum vote, by extension he's popular with the entire country.

The fact that despite all this popularity he enjoys, people still don't vote for him is just proof that electoral success is a poor measure of a politician's popularity. And here I was thinking people really just didn't like him much on the average.