Numero Veinticinco

Criminal not to pay £30m for a year loan?! Fuck that, man. Glad we didn't.

Every year if something changed. Which it wouldn’t.

If new info/circumstances come to light, sure. What’s wrong with giving more power to people to decide their future?

Thanks, mate. Appreciate it.

I don’t think murderer is comparable. I think you’re throwing terms around willy nilly, flippantly calling people sociopaths. Which makes you look silly and stops people from taking you seriously. Unless you’re making a qualified diagnosis, that is. Which, of course, you’re not. Because, ya know, you’re not able to do that. So, yeah, you can carry on calling people sociopath left right and centre, but you’re doing yourself no favours. In my opinion, of course.

No, I think you call lots of people sociopaths and if you do it for loads of people, it’ll lessen the impact and people will think it’s just cause you don’t like them.

Well, you've called 3 or 4 politicians sociopaths this last little while. If you call all of these people sociopaths people might just think that it's you saying 'they're twats', because the likelihood that everybody you don't like in politics is a sociopath is... low. What's ridiculous about the overuse of something leading to the lessening impact?

But... he's the leader of the opposition. You can't just pull out PMs for the crack. I dunno. It seems like it's the only option on the table and you're not going to take it.

But only if Corbyn becomes a woman because... women

The impact of that lessens with each politician you call a sociopath, tbf. Sorry, I meant second.

Glad to see him win us a trophy already. Fuck the hAtErZ

Yes. Seeing this stance as anti-democratic is infuriating, and just technically wrong.

Yes, that’s a fair point. He should get not be given that role to stop No Deal then have an election. Why couldn’t people get behind that? Nobody is asking to support him on nationalising the rail. You didnt answer my first question btw.

I said in my post. It’d accept it was the informed choice of the nation. And I disagree it’s not an additional vote. It would be in addition to the vote we already had. You don’t want to give people the power to change their mind. Fine. I believe in giving people that power. After all, I’m a democrat. I’m not stopping anybody voting for a no deal. The entire country can vote for it, that’s the democratic choice.

Fair enough. Get the big H in.

Well, he’s the leader of the opposition... who else has a better shout? For me its crazy for LD to reject it. Would you not be happy to have a short term, temp government of Corbyn and then an election, rather than a no deal Brexit and a Boris government? I mean, what else can actually be done? How are the LDs going to help avoid this shit? It’s all very well saying you’re the only party of remain, but when as chance comes along, if your actions actually secure a no deal... what good does it actually do anybody? For me, this is beyond party politics now. We are staring down the barrel of a No Deal Brexit.

Absolutely, yes. I believe that the people should have the power to shape their own futures and I believe in the right of people to change their mind - if they so wish - especially if more information has become available (and anybody who says new information hasn’t come out is ignorant or dishonest). Democracy is about giving people the power to rule. There’s no mandate for a no deal, we should give those subject to it the chance to either confirm that no deal is what they want or to cancel Brexit. If an agreement with the EU can be made, they should get a say on that too. Because I actually think democracy isn’t something happens once, I think it’s okay for people to change their mind, and I think it’s okay to ask them what they want. If it’s no deal, then no problem. If it’s a specific deal, the details of which are known, them fine. If it’s to say they want to stop the process, then fine. You want the narrow vote to leave to be locked in then let politicians with agendas decide what type of exit, even if people voted believing the official line about what will happen, and you don’t want to give people - the same people - to have the right to change their mind. That’s fine, but don’t pretend it’s democracy. Certainly don’t pretend that those of us who want to give additional power to people, more votes and more democracy are somehow not democrats. It’s a lie and a shambles to do so.

Do what? Nah, you said words. Untrue words. No money for you.

Why do the public have to do things on your timescale? I’d be happy to ask them every day. I’ve no issue with you not wanting another, additional democratic vote that is more well informed than the first. I have an issue with people who say those who do want an additional vote, giving more power to people to control their destiny, aren’t democrats. Mostly because it’s factually wrongly, logically retarded, and, in my opinion, morally repugnant.

1 vote vs 2 votes. Whats more democratic? If it’s 1 vote, isn’t zero votes even more democratic again? Good stuff.

A true democrat who doesn’t believing in asking the people. Honestly, it’s beyond fucking parody. I’ll give a million pounds to the first person that can answer how more democracy is less democracy. As for ‘torrent of abuse’, I think being told to fuck off, once, is probably a little less than that.

The will is, apparently, only important once.

You’ve avoided the question again. I’m done.

As a side note: I think that award goes to Haunting of Hill House

Why don’t you believe in the right of the electorate to change their mind now they have more information? And, considering the meaning of the word democracy, how is not giving the people more power over their destiny more democratic than giving them less power?