Ann Widdecombe's EU slavery remarks branded as disgusting

I haven't bothered to read your response as I'm already aware that your grasp of politics is extremely myopic.



Pointing out the failure of Brexit supporters of adequately plan is not an insult. It is a fact. That it offends you and you feel insulted by it does not change that fact, so stop playing the victim.

Patronising is a form of insulting. And when you patronise whilst apologising, it means it probably isn't sincere. I'm sure a parent/guardian would have taught you that long ago.

I referred to May and Brown as unelected, and I defended this by noting that it is common parlance across politics (left and right) to call PMs "unelected" if they have not got to their office via a general election. That is a fact. Somehow, you've taken that to mean that I'm claiming that we all vote for the PM directly, like the US presidential election. I have not said that. I know you don't directly elect the MP who is also PM unless you're in their constituency, and nothing I've said makes this claim. You have merely made an assumption. Ergo, I have made no contradictions, and you have pointed out no flaws.

(FYI, PMs that haven't faced a general election are referred to as "unelected" since a substantial number of people vote on the basis of who the PM might be (a lot of people won't vote Labour because they don't want Corbyn to be PM), or on the leader of the party (UKIP and the Brexit Party would not be half as successful if it wasn't for Farage). This is where the democratic deficit occurs, since the result of a general election would be different if a different leader is in place. The leader of a party influences people's votes, and can be decisive in an election (this why media tries so hard to discredit the image of leaders of parties more than anything else, and why most people remember Miliband for a bacon sandwich). Hope that helps you understand.

I refer you to what I said earlier in the topic.

I understand perfectly. I understand you are deliberately trying to be offended because you are incorrect and you can then claim some fake moral high ground.

We was not talking about voting tends in local vs general elections we was talking about the UK political system, I said you were confusing the two, you have now realised you are incorrect and made the same point I made hours ago in a patronising manner while complaining about patronization!

Anyway well done you realised I was right all long. Good bye.

I refer you to what I said earlier in the topic.

I understand perfectly. I understand you are deliberately trying to be offended because you are incorrect and you can then claim some fake moral high ground.

We was not talking about voting tends in local vs general elections we was talking about the UK political system, I said you were confusing the two, you have now realised you are incorrect and made the same point I made hours ago in a patronising manner while complaining about patronization!

Anyway well done you realised I was right all long. Good bye.

I'm not offended. I'm pointing out that you are being insulting, while castigating others for using insults.

And yes, your patronising tone made me patronise in turn, especially because of the irony in your misunderstanding. I explained to you why I (and 99% of people) refer to May and Brown as unelected. That's all. In no way does that make you right. You have mistakenly argued against a point I never made, and are now claiming victory. It's oddly childish.

I am not offended by your comments, I was actually highlighting I could read you text in different ways also if I so wished. The bonus in doing is you have now admitted you was being patronising, even though I has assured you i was not and made applogies.

There is nothing more I can do, I applogied you have not accepted it, I'm not kissing your backside - good bye.

On topic - you are welcome to refer to anyone however you wish, the fact is they are not unelected and you agreed, however you wish to see if in your mind is an opinion, to which you are entitled to hold. The fact is they are elected and that's that!

Hahaha, look who was really going for the moral high ground (bonus, eh )

Again, you've been arguing against yourself. I never made any such claim, only you did, and you argued against it. Basic comprehension fail.

Have a nice evening.

That is true and chief piggy as you called it is the head of the cabinet!

You are confusing issues, such as voting trends between general and local elections and the actual electoral political system. We are not a republic we don't vote for the p.m like, it's totally different system to how president's are elected.

Wrong again on the contrary they are very factual;

Who rejected the Canada deal the EU president offered on requested of uk brexiteers? Answer Theresa May a remainer parliament parliamentarian

Who rejected the cheques deal? Answer Theresa May a remainer parliament parliamentarian.

Who rejected an exit agreement they had previously said they agree with -answer remainer Parliamentarians

Thank you for the insult but your written text is proving who is actually is, as you described me - mindlessly parroting!

Yes?

You do know the difference between theory and practice right? In theory you might be meant to vote your local representative in practice most vote for the person who is running to be PM. This is neither a complex nor a mysterious fact to grasp.

Can you say something other than youre wrong to people you dont like, its getting frightfully tedious and making me question whether you know what the word means.

You'll have to remind me when anyone ever offered a Canada deal.

Thats a lie...


I know the term 'useful idiot' is usually used in reference to those pesky Russians and what not but you seem to be doing an excellent job of emulating and spitting out your idle Farages fibbs.






You seem to be a bit overly sensitive and take absolutely any comment as 'an insult'...

Oh what a load of rubbish in order

Yes!
..................
The name of your local candidate is on your ballot paper, you vote for them - This is neither a complex nor a mysterious fact to grasp.but it's proving difficult for you.
................
I don't form an opinion on the usernames, I do not know the people and thus I don't dislike anyone. I'm saying they are wrong because they are wrong. I understand its difficult for you to admit but you are wrong, you don't elect a PM!
...............
I'm not here to educate you!
................
No its fact - Theresa May pulled the Chequers deal before she took it to a MV
...............
Lovely paragraph of dribble but my sentence was factually correct and not a lie. Mainly Labour MPs had said that they agreed the exit agreement but then rejected it in MV3,
.....................
Lol says the person who took whataboutism as one!
....................

Now that's cleared up, try and stick to facts instead of throwing false accusations around, I don't form opinions on anyone and am more than capable of understanding the English language, therefore by definition you are wrong to accuse me of disliking someone I don't know. Good day

For an "adult" and a "business owner" you really do write like an angry teenager either way the fact remains you're either deliberately talking out of your fundament or you're ignorant of political realities. It really doesnt make much difference though as ive used up all of the time i've allotted to banging my head against a wall with you this morning)

For an "adult" and a "business owner" you really do write like an angry teenager either way the fact remains you're either deliberately talking out of your fundament or you're ignorant of political realities. It really doesnt make much difference though as ive used up all of the time i've allotted to banging my head against a wall with you this morning)

@Napp@winterscoming @Bashtopher @Trotsky's Iceaxe

Well it's lovely and flattering that you four have set up your little club with the sole purpose are belittling, insulting, questioning my social status hell even my sexual performance other threads (Trotsky's iceage) and from the smoke and mirrors of accusation that it is I who is the one who's insulting and belittling!

Of course none of us really holds any water whatsoever because you could be successful labeling me a school boy with a paper round or a maggot on a piece of meat or the CEO of Coca-Cola! Oh course it really doesn't make any difference whatsoever because the points are the points and the fact are the facts! The issue remains that you've got a deviate away from them to random insults shows that you can't hold reasonable debate with me. The only person who has not insulted me is winterscoming.

facts remain the same whether it be to Trotsky's insult ridden accusation that 370 million with a week the the EU is a lie, which is isn't its the gross figure or napps accusation of me lying about remainers rejected the EU exit deal they previously said they agreed with, which is exactly factually what they did in MV3.

I refer to what I said in my first post, what's actually disgusting is the fact, poltics can not be discussed with facts and figures without petty name calling and insults! You lot prove me correct again.

I think my problem with you is that you didn't engage with what I said; instead, you attributed to me a claim I did not make and when I told you, you ignored it and just said that you're right and I'm wrong. You also implied that I plaigirised by thinking aloud, became patronising afterwards and then accused me of seeking the moral high ground.

I only gave you facts, be it in my original post of the two constitutions, or the fact that it is common to describe PMs that haven't faced a general election as "unelected". These are facts, and you chose to ignore them and to say I claimed something different.

I regret that I stooped to your level of being equally patronising, but it's frustrating when people say that you said something you didn't. And when they ignore you correcting their interpretation, become patronising and accuse you of seeking the moral high ground (the latter of which is a little ironic considering your previous two posts referring to me), it becomes even more irritating.

For what it's worth, I apologise for being equally patronising. But having said that, I implore you to actually read what the person you are speaking to wrote, and if they are telling you that they have been misinterpreted, actually listen and engage with what they're saying. It might go better than just calling them wrong, you right, and being patronising and accusatory all the while. Otherwise, you just come across as a troll.

HTH

@Napp@winterscoming @Bashtopher @Trotsky's Iceaxe

Well it's lovely and flattering that you four have set up your little club with the sole purpose are belittling, insulting, questioning my social status hell even my sexual performance other threads (Trotsky's iceage) and from the smoke and mirrors of accusation that it is I who is the one who's insulting and belittling!

Of course none of us really holds any water whatsoever because you could be successful labeling me a school boy with a paper round or a maggot on a piece of meat or the CEO of Coca-Cola! Oh course it really doesn't make any difference whatsoever because the points are the points and the fact are the facts! The issue remains that you've got a deviate away from them to random insults shows that you can't hold reasonable debate with me. The only person who has not insulted me is winterscoming.

facts remain the same whether it be to Trotsky's insult ridden accusation that 370 million with a week the the EU is a lie, which is isn't its the gross figure or napps accusation of me lying about remainers rejected the EU exit deal they previously said they agreed with, which is exactly factually what they did in MV3.

I refer to what I said in my first post, what's actually disgusting is the fact, poltics can not be discussed with facts and figures without petty name calling and insults! You lot prove me correct again.

loved her interview on good morning Britain a few days ago.

Not sure about the male hosts name, but he was awful. He had such a simple argument to make, and one where most people will instantly agree with him, and yet he managed to **** it up and make Ann look like the reasonable and considered one.

Anns areguements are easy to break apart. Someone like Andrew neil would have had a field day in logically breaking it down. But their presenter didn't have a clue how to go about taking her on.