Scroll to see replies
What people think is utterly irrelevant, it's a redundant question because Nigel Farage will never become PM. Politics has always been a popularity contest, however nowadays personality is more important than ever. The vast majority of the voting public have had their thought processes usurped by shame and guilt narratives, as well as narratives of omission by our monopolistic broadcaster, to the point they don't know how to think like Nigel Farage.
Even if they do think like Nigel Farage, and prioritise survival and common sense over righteousness and vainglory, they'll be shamed and guilted into conforming by the baying mob. This is the society past generations have left us, and it will only get worse and more totalitarian with every passing year, particularly as the most totalitarian continue to disguise their subversiveness in pointless and aimless objectives like 'diversity' and 'equality'.
20 years ago he would merely have been the epitome of common sense, today he's a 'nutjob.' That's what happens when you orientate society around identity, rather than individuality, or liberalism. Who he is becomes more important than what he says, perception trumps reality. Western civilisation will burn as hundreds of competing identities - women vs. men, hundreds of migrant groups vs. resident population, rich vs. poor, etc. - all stake their claim for superiority over the next 100 years. Long since accepting of the inevitable outcome, my only source of enjoyment is in the thought I'll be around to see it happen, and revel in knowing how right I was.
Even if they do think like Nigel Farage, and prioritise survival and common sense over righteousness and vainglory, they'll be shamed and guilted into conforming by the baying mob. This is the society past generations have left us, and it will only get worse and more totalitarian with every passing year, particularly as the most totalitarian continue to disguise their subversiveness in pointless and aimless objectives like 'diversity' and 'equality'.
20 years ago he would merely have been the epitome of common sense, today he's a 'nutjob.' That's what happens when you orientate society around identity, rather than individuality, or liberalism. Who he is becomes more important than what he says, perception trumps reality. Western civilisation will burn as hundreds of competing identities - women vs. men, hundreds of migrant groups vs. resident population, rich vs. poor, etc. - all stake their claim for superiority over the next 100 years. Long since accepting of the inevitable outcome, my only source of enjoyment is in the thought I'll be around to see it happen, and revel in knowing how right I was.
(edited 7 years ago)
I've watched enough of his interviews to see that he's a decent enough person, puts his points forward properly, debates well and seems mostly honest. Certainly would make a better PM that David Cameron in his current state.
That being said, I'm pretty confident that all of those qualities would fade away if he became PM. The higher the political ladder you go, the more out of touch you become and concerned only with party politics, spin, retaining power etc.
That being said, I'm pretty confident that all of those qualities would fade away if he became PM. The higher the political ladder you go, the more out of touch you become and concerned only with party politics, spin, retaining power etc.
trump 2.0 no
Original post by 雷尼克
No, because we need leaders who respect international co-operation, and ones who want to improve our international relationships rather than seal them off.
What make you come to the conclusion that you think that he does not respect international cooperation? He wants Europe and free trade and international cooperation, but not as part of an undemocratic political union (the EU).
Original post by metaljoe
What make you come to the conclusion that you think that he does not respect international cooperation? He wants Europe and free trade and international cooperation, but not as part of an undemocratic political union (the EU).
Because Farage fundamentally views success as improving Britain and British quality of life alone. We aren't the only country in the world, we should help each other so that all countries have stable democratic governments, with fruitful trade, good standards of healthcare and education - the quicker these countries develop, the quicker they can adapt to fight the real threats to our world like global warming and corruption rather than tiny militant groups like ISIS who are thriving off conflict which we are currently incapable of resolving.
Original post by 雷尼克
Because Farage fundamentally views success as improving Britain and British quality of life alone. We aren't the only country in the world, we should help each other so that all countries have stable democratic governments, with fruitful trade, good standards of healthcare and education - the quicker these countries develop, the quicker they can adapt to fight the real threats to our world like global warming and corruption rather than tiny militant groups like ISIS who are thriving off conflict which we are currently incapable of resolving.
This argument is launched from a number of false premises:
1. The state of nature, in international relations, is altruism. It's not self-interest, it's about looking out for the interests of others.
To this point I hand you a multitude of exceptions, ie, every action in international relations. Nation-states don't exist to further the interests of their partners, they exist to further the interests of themselves.
Obama characterised this in the last week when he decided to put the UK to 'the back of the queue' for a trade deal no-one in their right mind wants (ie, a trade deal which permits US corporations to sue the British Government if they interfere with their right to generate profit, ie, by disallowing them from competing for NHS contracts).
2. Global warming exists.
To this, I hand you the indisputable fact the climate hasn't warmed in 20 years. See this story on the BBC, which has been downplayed and covered up incessantly. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404 I also give you their incessant fiddling of temperature figures http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
Climate Change is about everything other than Climate Change, to know that you'd need to read about the political activities behind climate change - heck, I doubt you've even considered why it's no longer referred to as 'global warming' (think long and hard about it). I doubt you even know the Green movement originated in Nazi Germany. I doubt you know very much other than what the Ministry of Truth tells you to believe.
That's not an insult, it's just most people these days don't have an enquiring mind - they believe what they are told to believe and rarely believe anything their peer group doesn't.
3. That identity takes precedence over principle.
It doesn't matter how many people ISIS kill, it certainly would matter more to you if ISIS chose to kill you - 1 person is 1 person too many. Life isn't cheap, nor should barbarism be more acceptable if it's conducted on a smaller scale (which is essentially the argument you're attempting to advance, largely to make your identity politics fit your arguments, like most illiberal identity ideologues).
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ImmunetoShaming
This argument is launched from a number of false premises:
2. Global warming exists.
To this, I hand you the indisputable fact the climate hasn't warmed in 20 years. See this story on the BBC, which has been downplayed and covered up incessantly. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404 I also give you their incessant fiddling of temperature figures http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
Climate Change is about everything other than Climate Change, to know that you'd need to read about the political activities behind climate change - heck, I doubt you've even considered why it's no longer referred to as 'global warming' (think long and hard about it). I doubt you even know the Green movement originated in Nazi Germany. I doubt you know very much other than what the Ministry of Truth tells you to believe.
That's not an insult, it's just most people these days don't have an enquiring mind - they believe what they are told to believe and rarely believe anything their peer group doesn't
.
2. Global warming exists.
To this, I hand you the indisputable fact the climate hasn't warmed in 20 years. See this story on the BBC, which has been downplayed and covered up incessantly. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404 I also give you their incessant fiddling of temperature figures http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
Climate Change is about everything other than Climate Change, to know that you'd need to read about the political activities behind climate change - heck, I doubt you've even considered why it's no longer referred to as 'global warming' (think long and hard about it). I doubt you even know the Green movement originated in Nazi Germany. I doubt you know very much other than what the Ministry of Truth tells you to believe.
That's not an insult, it's just most people these days don't have an enquiring mind - they believe what they are told to believe and rarely believe anything their peer group doesn't
.
Have you paid attention to a single scientific study...ever?
The only "indisputable fact" is that the global temperature is rising, sea levels are rising, arctic sea ice is rapidly shrinking, and global carbon levels are rising. But of course, I'm sure you'll profess that NASA and numerous other scientists are wrong.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Original post by JRKinder
Please tell me this is a joke, are you actually telling us that climate change does not exist?
Have you paid attention to a single scientific study...ever?
The only "indisputable fact" is that the global temperature is rising, sea levels are rising, arctic sea ice is rapidly shrinking, and global carbon levels are rising. But of course, I'm sure you'll profess that NASA and numerous other scientists are wrong.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Have you paid attention to a single scientific study...ever?
The only "indisputable fact" is that the global temperature is rising, sea levels are rising, arctic sea ice is rapidly shrinking, and global carbon levels are rising. But of course, I'm sure you'll profess that NASA and numerous other scientists are wrong.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
You mean all of the same academics and researchers who constantly question each other in peer review? You may have NASA on your side, but I've got hundreds of leading academics - geologists, not people with an incentive to push their own bias to further their own career - and 5-odd Nobel Prize winners on my side. http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf
Here's a direct excerpt - read it and weep your little progressive heart out (you'll have to ignore the whitespace issue, it's a direct copy and paste from a scientific journal):
"We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theoryof man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science,and its important consequences for politics and theglobal economy—is based on ice core studies that provided afalse picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.
Meanwhile, morethan 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere,carried out in America, Asia, and Europe between 1812 and1961, with excellent chemical methods (accuracy better than3 percent), were arbitrarily rejected [by the IPCC]. These measurements hadbeen published in 175 technical papers. For the past threedecades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recentlycompiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a,Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—andnot because they were wrong.
Indeed, thesemeasurements were made by top scientists, including twoNobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standardtextbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany,hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason forrejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesisof anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhapsthe greatest scientific scandal of our time."
Guess where NASA's data comes from?
The global temperature has not risen in 20-25 years. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has shown marked increase, but there's been no increase in global temperatures.
Now, that may outrage you, but I don't know what to tell you. Every independent measurement tells you exactly the same thing. There's also the whole fact that, you know, man-made CO2 accounts for about, you know, 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001% of naturally emitted CO2.
There's also the fact that CO2 concentration in the earth's atmosphere needs to be, at a bare minimum, 240ppm to sustain all plant life (currently at 400ppm and it has been far, far higher all throughout history).
There's also the fact that £trillions are dependent on perpetuating global warming, and nothing cajoles people into action - to vote for the types of people progressives want you to vote for - like a big epic scare story (which they're rapidly running out of proof for).
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by sfaraj
trump 2.0 no
A rather lazy comparison. Farage has been ideologically consistent for over 20 years whereas Trump changes positions with the polls.
Farage cares about promoting his issues, Trump cares about promoting himself.
I may not agree with Farage but I do respect his consistency and his candidness.
Original post by sfaraj
trump 2.0 no
he came before trump though :|
Original post by metaljoe
Do you think Nigel Farage should be PM? If so why and if not why not?
Doesn't he remind you of Mr Bean?
I do love Nigel and I believe he makes brilliant points (especially considering the media and establishment bias against him) but I think he is too power hungry and too passionate to hold back so not prime minister. He got us a referendum against all odds and a lib/lab/con plot to stop him so I admire him greatly.
Original post by JRKinder
Please tell me this is a joke, are you actually telling us that climate change does not exist?
Have you paid attention to a single scientific study...ever?
The only "indisputable fact" is that the global temperature is rising, sea levels are rising, arctic sea ice is rapidly shrinking, and global carbon levels are rising. But of course, I'm sure you'll profess that NASA and numerous other scientists are wrong.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Have you paid attention to a single scientific study...ever?
The only "indisputable fact" is that the global temperature is rising, sea levels are rising, arctic sea ice is rapidly shrinking, and global carbon levels are rising. But of course, I'm sure you'll profess that NASA and numerous other scientists are wrong.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
I'm a kipper and I believe in climate change like I think Nigel does (he may give the impression he doesn't but its the cost at which working individuals should pay to combat it he challenges).
But I acknowledge especially in american politics (not so much UK politics) that the right pretend it does not exist, and I used that word on purpose. To sum it up, there are those on the right who don't give a **** and have interests that are directly or indirectly affected by addressing climate change. These people know it exists but don't care. Nonetheless, it is one of the few things that annoy me as a right winger.
But where I think the left are at fault, take the green party, they want mass uncontrolled open door unlimited immigration. The left continue to shout "we have enough free space anyway" but under their proposals every green inch in our country would become grey urban space. One thing I love UKIP for is their support for the countryside and maintaining its beauty. The grey party, sorry I mean the green party are desperate to build on every inch of it to house the world.
He may not be always right but largely is his and he is charismatic and could be a great leader.
sadly due to the fear- mongering that he is evil and that he is racist. he will likely not get in but with good right wing parties across Europe are rising you never know
sadly due to the fear- mongering that he is evil and that he is racist. he will likely not get in but with good right wing parties across Europe are rising you never know
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- De-banked for expressing alternative social views
- Do you wish Johnson to return?
- Lee Anderson defects to reform
- Southern V Northern British Foods? (nommmm!)
- Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The Guardian
- Name a boy's name which starts with the last letter of the above name
- Naturism at Warwick
- Rochdale By-election: George Galloway elected as new MP
- The Empire Strikes Back. De Vere Group!
- Why are driving instructors the scummiest of people?
- GCSE Astronomy prep?
- What could happen here
- Finally, a study to show what we all knew anyway.
- Farage is as dishonest as the rest
- deVere Group - Scam or Not?
- Desire for net zero referendum growing among public, poll finds
- Stuck between firming Loughborough and Bath for architecture
- Jamie Oliver
- Absolutely furious with the NHS
- By next year this is what Sky should do?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
