The Commons Bar Mk XIII - MHoC Chat Thread

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If the Republicans are smart * Posted from TSR Mobile
    Lol.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Government accepts a labour motion and u turns on not allowing Parliament to scrutinise its EU negotiating proposals.

    Good.*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snufkin)
    You are wasting your time trying to have a rational debate with Jammy Duel and joecphillips on this issue. Nothing you say, no matter how well reasoned or how much evidence you have, is going to change their mind. They are either trolling or have been brain-washed, either way, don't pander to them. Engaging in rational opposition is a compliment neither Trump nor his supporters deserve. Let's just dismiss him as a buffoon, he isn't going to win so the less said about him the better.
    You don't do rational debates you use ad hominems and ignore any criticism of yourself.

    I've been asked to be critical of trump I have done so now can you criticise and say what is wrong with Hillary or is she just the perfect candidate?
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    You don't do rational debates you use ad hominems and ignore any criticism of yourself.

    I've been asked to be critical of trump I have done so now can you criticise and say what is wrong with Hillary or is she just the perfect candidate?
    I don't think anyone has said that Hilary is the perfect candidate.*
    What we have commented on is your inability to accept any criticism of trump by continuously going 'ah but Hilary' as soon as anyone questions him. It's also the inability to critically analyse and assess his loopy, incoherent policies and when someone questions his policies your response is normally 'ah but Hilary's corrupt and a war criminal'


    And then of course there is the barrel of ludicrous and desperate smears you continuously make of Hilary such as saying that she cannot care about rape victims because she was a criminal lawyer.*

    The cult around Trump simply doesn't allow debate or criticism with regards to anything their dear leader does or says.*
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Corbyn has fire in his belly, he has eaten his Weetabix. Thank God there are no 'Liz from Durham emailed me....' ' type questions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I don't think anyone has said that Hilary is the perfect candidate.*
    What we have commented on is your inability to accept any criticism of trump by continuously going 'ah but Hilary' as soon as anyone questions him. It's also the inability to critically analyse and assess his loopy, incoherent policies and when someone questions his policies your response is normally 'ah but Hilary's corrupt and a war criminal'


    And then of course there is the barrel of ludicrous and desperate smears you continuously make of Hilary such as saying that she cannot care about rape victims because she was a criminal lawyer.*

    The cult around Trump simply doesn't allow debate or criticism with regards to anything their dear leader does or says.*
    As I have said it isn't just an isolated incident she has threatened intimidated and insulted victims outside of court which is nothing to do with being a lawyer.

    I have criticised trump but it's interesting you reply to a post with the question what is wrong with Hillary and then attack trump without answering it.

    Maybe look in the mirror and criticise your candidate for their actions before you complain that someone who has criticised the candidate they support.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    HSJ informed the junior doctor reps that they would NOT be discussing the JDC at their meeting, so the BMA boycotted along with other professional bodies.

    Then tweeted that BMA avoided talks "about junior doctor contract"

    Sigh

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    As I have said it isn't just an isolated incident she has threatened intimidated and insulted victims outside of court which is nothing to do with being a lawyer.

    I have criticised trump but it's interesting you reply to a post with the question what is wrong with Hillary and then attack trump without answering it.

    Maybe look in the mirror and criticise your candidate for their actions before you complain that someone who has criticised the candidate they support.
    Oh I have criticised Hillary numerous times. Especially during the primaries.* unlike trump though she has put together a coherent policy platform which doesn't completely contradict itself.
    Not saying it's politically desirable necessarily but it's coherent and makes sense. Unlike trump who's entire economic policy is based on both massively increasing spending and massively reducing taxes at the same time.*



    ** As for the court, you simply cannot claim that what a defence lawyer says in court is indicative of their own opinion. The two most useless word in law are 'I think'. No one cares what you think in law. They care about two questions:

    1.) what's the law?
    2.) what happened?

    There is Zero scope for what the lawyers 'think'.
    *
    Defence lawyers are not giving their opinion. They *are trying to cast doubt on the prosecution's case.

    That's before we mention the sheer hypocrisy in you claiming that Hilary is both a 'feminizi' and someone who doesn't care about women at the same time.*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Oh I have criticised Hillary numerous times. Especially during the primaries.* unlike trump though she has put together a coherent policy platform which doesn't completely contradict itself.
    Not saying it's politically desirable necessarily but it's coherent and makes sense. Unlike trump who's entire economic policy is based on both massively increasing spending and massively reducing taxes at the same time.*



    ** As for the court, you simply cannot claim that what a defence lawyer says in court is indicative of their own opinion. The two most useless word in law are 'I think'. No one cares what you think in law. They care about two questions:

    1.) what's the law?
    2.) what happened?

    There is Zero scope for what the lawyers 'think'.
    *
    Defence lawyers are not giving their opinion. They *are trying to cast doubt on the prosecution's case.

    That's before we mention the sheer hypocrisy in you claiming that Hilary is both a 'feminizi' and someone who doesn't care about women at the same time.*
    So once again you do not criticise Hillary instead you criticise trump, I was asked to criticise trump I did that you have been asked to criticise Hillary do you have any intention of doing that here?

    Hillary's public policy is believe all victims in private she has worked to destroy victims explain how that is not hypocrisy? Unless of course she believes bills victims but doesn't care about them.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    So once again you do not criticise Hillary instead you criticise trump, I was asked to criticise trump I did that you have been asked to criticise Hillary do you have any intention of doing that here?

    Hillary's public policy is believe all victims in private she has worked to destroy victims explain how that is not hypocrisy? Unless of course she believes bills victims but doesn't care about them.
    Sigh. I have criticised Hilary several times. I don't like her closeness to big business, I didn't like her dismissal of sanders supporters, i don't like how she has given up on trying to push through universal healthcare. I was very critical of her in the campaign and supported sanders.

    But whatever her faults are, Trumps are 1000 times worse which is why I suppprt her now.

    You are trying to argue that you can not care about rape victims if you are a criminal lawyer. Quite frankly, that makes you ridiculous. WHAT A DEFENCE LAWYER SAYS IN A TRIAL IS NOT INDICATIVE OF THEIR PERSONAL OPINION.


    The fact that you are using the fact she was a defence lawyer to smear her is pathetic, even for a Trump supporter.*

    Please *answer me this question though. How is Donald Trump going to massively increase spending while at the same time massively reducing taxes? Unless of course he wants the deficit to absolutely balloon.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Sigh. I have criticised Hilary several times. I don't like her closeness to big business, I didn't like her dismissal of sanders supporters, i don't like how she has given up on trying to push through universal healthcare. I was very critical of her in the campaign and supported sanders.

    But whatever her faults are, Trumps are 1000 times worse which is why I suppprt her now.

    You are trying to argue that you can not care about rape victims if you are a criminal lawyer. Quite frankly, that makes you ridiculous. WHAT A DEFENCE LAWYER SAYS IN A TRIAL IS NOT INDICATIVE OF THEIR PERSONAL OPINION.


    The fact that you are using the fact she was a defence lawyer to smear her is pathetic, even for a Trump supporter.*

    Please *answer me this question though. How is Donald Trump going to massively increase spending while at the same time massively reducing taxes? Unless of course he wants the deficit to absolutely balloon.
    As I've said repeatedly it is not just in her court she has done this she has called victims trailer trash and bimbos as well as plotting to 'destroy; another and when something happens repeatedly it is indicative of their personal opinions.

    I have answered that yesterday I believe it was look at his main criticism of nafta regarding nations taxing companies on imports from America he has stated he would start taxing imports from these countries.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    As I've said repeatedly it is not just in her court she has done this she has called victims trailer trash and bimbos as well as plotting to 'destroy; another and when something happens repeatedly it is indicative of their personal opinions.

    I have answered that yesterday I believe it was look at his main criticism of nafta regarding nations taxing companies on imports from America he has stated he would start taxing imports from these countries.
    Her actions in court as a defence lawyer can not legitimately form any part of your opinion on what her personal views are. It is ludicrous to suggest they do.

    So he is going to massively increase spending at the same time as massively reducing taxation simply by taxing imports? Is that a joke? For a start other countries will tax American imports in response and more importantly where on earth is your data that suggests this will generate anywhere near the relevant funds?

    This is a prime example of you offering trump a free pass even when presenting the most incoherent of policy platforms. The fact you are willing to accept it without at all challenging it is laughable.

    **
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Her actions in court as a defence lawyer can not legitimately form any part of your opinion on what her personal views are. It is ludicrous to suggest they do.

    So he is going to massively increase spending at the same time as massively reducing taxation simply by taxing imports? Is that a joke? For a start other countries will tax American imports in response and more importantly where on earth is your data that suggests this will generate anywhere near the relevant funds?

    This is a prime example of you offering trump a free pass even when presenting the most incoherent of policy platforms. The fact you are willing to accept it without at all challenging it is laughable.

    **
    Once again she does the same thing outside of her job are you going to excuse her of it there as well?
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-single-market
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Here's the hard truth of things. 52% of the country would like to leave the EU. Perhaps 80% would like free education, a much higher minimum wages, subsidised rents, free childcare for all and a universal basic income. But we're not going to do all that, cause we can't afford it. So why is it that when it comes to Brexit, the will of a very narrow majority is so important even when it's increasingly clear that we really, really can't afford that? Surely one of the basic jobs of the government is to step in when "what the people want" is something that'll literally bankrupt us because it makes such little economic sense? And if not - then what exactly is the point of us having a damn government in the first place?
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The documents says: “The Treasury estimates that UK GDP would be between 5.4% and 9.5% of GDP lower after 15 years if we left the EU with no successor arrangement, with a central estimate of 7.5%.

    Let's take that worst case of 9.5%, divide it between 15 years and then what it's actually saying in a less alarmist tone is that the economy will grow but just by 0.6% less per year.

    Plus that's predicated on WTO rules which won't happen.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The documents says: “The Treasury estimates that UK GDP would be between 5.4% and 9.5% of GDP lower after 15 years if we left the EU with no successor arrangement, with a central estimate of 7.5%.

    Let's take that worst case of 9.5%, divide it between 15 years and then what it's actually saying in a less alarmist tone is that the economy will grow but just by 0.6% less per year.

    Plus that's predicated on WTO rules which won't happen.
    0.6% less growth is an absolute catastrophe, let's be honest.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    0.6% less growth is an absolute catastrophe, let's be honest.
    Not especially. The difference in growth between 2014 and 2015 was larger than for example.

    At any rate, that is the treasury's worst case scenario which is not the probable end.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Not especially. The difference in growth between 2014 and 2015 was larger than for example.

    At any rate, that is the treasury's worst case scenario which is not the probable end.
    Even a 0.2% loss is really, really bad - remember this compounds over years.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Even a 0.2% loss is really, really bad - remember this compounds over years.
    Well that's true but the hope from those of supporting Brexit is that we will negate that over time.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 4, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.