General Election 2015

[buctootim]

Just looked it up, there are 1700!! That is 1700 CEOs and 1700 CFOs etc etc. Why on earth do we need that many?

 

 

1,700 isnt too many. There are 2.5million HA houses so thats an average of 1,500 homes each. A lot of them are niche needs providers.

[stug76]

I think that at best this thread shows that most people have a political leaning and any amount of 'debate' of which there has been basically none here, is going to change any body's vote.

For me, I just can't believe that anyone is going to vote for the Labour/SNP. If they get in we'll have to live with a government that's sole purpose is to break up the very country it governs. You can forget the economy, you can forget the NHS, education, defense. Every thing will be a compromise on devolved power to Scotland.

[View From The Top]

I think that at best this thread shows that most people have a political leaning and any amount of 'debate' of which there has been basically none here, is going to change any body's vote.

For me, I just can't believe that anyone is going to vote for the Labour/SNP. If they get in we'll have to live with a government that's sole purpose is to break up the very country it governs. You can forget the economy, you can forget the NHS, education, defense. Every thing will be a compromise on devolved power to Scotland.

 

I'd vote for the devil himself if it kept the tories out and would never pretend otherwise.

[hypochondriac]

I think that at best this thread shows that most people have a political leaning and any amount of 'debate' of which there has been basically none here, is going to change any body's vote.

For me, I just can't believe that anyone is going to vote for the Labour/SNP. If they get in we'll have to live with a government that's sole purpose is to break up the very country it governs. You can forget the economy, you can forget the NHS, education, defense. Every thing will be a compromise on devolved power to Scotland.

 

Indeed. I'm not really a fan of the Conservatives particularly but the only alternative looks to be clearly much worse.

[CB Fry]

I think that at best this thread shows that most people have a political leaning and any amount of 'debate' of which there has been basically none here, is going to change any body's vote.

For me, I just can't believe that anyone is going to vote for the Labour/SNP. If they get in we'll have to live with a government that's sole purpose is to break up the very country it governs. You can forget the economy, you can forget the NHS, education, defense. Every thing will be a compromise on devolved power to Scotland.

 

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

 

You could make a case that a Tory win that then triggers a bigger landslide in the Assembly elections next year would be a bigger threat to the union than keeping the SNP in the tent participating in Westminster government.

 

And added to that, an SNP clearly aligned to the government of the day actually robs the SNP of one of the biggest assets - the ability to blame "them". Over time it could easily do for them like it probably will for Clegg.

 

Lastly Sturgeon got booed heavily when she talked about another referendum at the STV debate and subsequently rowed back from there - they ain't getting no referendum for at least a decade, at least - democracy spoke and they said no.

 

I can't stand Alex Salmond but a Lab/Lib/SNP/Caroline Lucas thing might just work.

[SuperMikey]

If the SNP get into power in whatever capacity, they won't be able to wield much influence because of all the other parties that would be involved in a "Rainbow" coalition. Also as CB pointed out, the demand for a referendum is at its lowest now so they will have to focus on policy rather than banging on about that. It's a put up/shut up scenario - with no chance of a referendum they'll have to practice what they preach and show to the voters in Scotland that they can actually deliver on what they say. Personally I think they can, they have some talented politicians in their ranks and will have a big bloc of MPs in the Commons going by recent polls. Working with Labour, Lib Dem, Greens etc would provide a pretty balanced left-leaning coalition that may actually gather the support of the people unlike the previous incumbents.

[Lord Duckhunter]

He lost one high profile policy, that wasn't even one of their 5 main policies. To judge a parties success on that is extremely myopic, but a lot of people have have. It's a shame.

 

They signed a pledge saying

 

" I pledge to vote against any increase in fees"

 

That's not failing to get a policy through, the pledge was never to abolish them or reduce them , it was very specific . To vote against an increase. Whether you are in Government or not is irrelevant ,they could have left them as they were and admitted failure in trying to " pressure the Government " ( which was the second part of the pledge). They did not do so.

 

They are even lying about the lie . Their policy may have been to reduce them, but their pledge was to vote against any increase. Do you understand the difference ?

 

3 things could have happened to fees under the coalition . They could have gone down,stayed the same or gone up. 2 of those options would have meant sticking to their pledge, regardless of what their policy was.

[buctootim]

To vote against an increase. Whether you are in Government or not is irrelevant ,they could have left them as they were and admitted failure in trying to " pressure the Government " ( which was the second part of the pledge). They did not do so.

 

Irs not irrelevant. In government you have collective responsibility for all actions carried out by that government. You cant pick and choose which bits you agree with and run to the press on the ones you dont.

[hypochondriac]

Irs not irrelevant. In government you have collective responsibility for all actions carried out by that government. You cant pick and choose which bits you agree with and run to the press on the ones you dont.

 

Sounds like that's exactly what the snp intend to do.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Irs not irrelevant. In government you have collective responsibility for all actions carried out by that government. You cant pick and choose which bits you agree with and run to the press on the ones you dont.

 

Pony .

 

The pledge didn't say they would lower or abolish fees . Had it said that then they could be justified in claiming that because of coalition they could not deliver it, the Tory IHT cut couldn't be delivered , neither could boundary changes . What they did was entirely different and you've fallen for their lies over their lie.

 

They pledged to vote against something, and then did the complete opposite . Had fees remained the same they would not have broken their pledge because their pledge was to vote against a rise . Their tuition fee policy could not be delivered because of coalition , but their pledge wasn't to bring in their policy . It was to vote against a rise & pressure the government , surely you can see the difference

[trousers]

Pony .

 

The pledge didn't say they would lower or abolish fees . Had it said that then they could be justified in claiming that because of coalition they could not deliver it, the Tory IHT cut couldn't be delivered , neither could boundary changes . What they did was entirely different and you've fallen for their lies over their lie.

 

They pledged to vote against something, and then did the complete opposite . Had fees remained the same they would not have broken their pledge because their pledge was to vote against a rise . Their tuition fee policy could not be delivered because of coalition , but their pledge wasn't to bring in their policy . It was to vote against a rise & pressure the government , surely you can see the difference

The lowest paid graduates (c.30% of all graduates) will pay less under the new system, so, in part, they kept their pledge. And the majority pay less per month so its arguably a fairer system. OK, so it doesn't match their pledge but, IMO, they came up with a pretty decent compromise given the constraints that a coalition places on the minority party getting their policies included.

[Batman]

a slum landlord?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040796/Labour-s-queen-hypocrisy-MP-sneered-white-van-man-attacks-Tory-right-buy-plan-thought-bought-1million-housing-association-home-rents-out.html

[CB Fry]

Pony .

 

The pledge didn't say they would lower or abolish fees . Had it said that then they could be justified in claiming that because of coalition they could not deliver it, the Tory IHT cut couldn't be delivered , neither could boundary changes . What they did was entirely different and you've fallen for their lies over their lie.

 

They pledged to vote against something, and then did the complete opposite . Had fees remained the same they would not have broken their pledge because their pledge was to vote against a rise . Their tuition fee policy could not be delivered because of coalition , but their pledge wasn't to bring in their policy . It was to vote against a rise & pressure the government , surely you can see the difference

The Lib Dems really broke your heart didn't they?

 

Please don't let it put you off voting for another progressive party with social justice at its heart this time round.

[CB Fry]

a slum landlord?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040796/Labour-s-queen-hypocrisy-MP-sneered-white-van-man-attacks-Tory-right-buy-plan-thought-bought-1million-housing-association-home-rents-out.html

Reminds me of your mum.

[CB Saint]

1,700 isnt too many. There are 2.5million HA houses so thats an average of 1,500 homes each. A lot of them are niche needs providers.

 

still think you could half that number, whilst you would still need the maintenance staff etc you would save on back office / corporate governance staff.

[pap]

Conservative Manifesto: "Mother of all lies" - former Tory Peer

 

The Conservatives have continued to spin their familiar yarn of having rescued Britain from ‘Labour’s Great Recession’. This, as they must know, is the mother of all lies. The Great Recession was caused by the banks. Governments, the Labour government included, by bailing out the banks and continuing to spend, stopped the Great Recession from turning into a Great Depression. Yet practically everyone seems to believe that the Great Recession was manufactured by Gordon Brown.

 

The Conservatives claim that ‘by halving the deficit we have restored confidence to the economy’. This cheerfully ignores the near academic consensus that their deficit-reduction policies over the last 5 years have made the British economy between 5 and 10% smaller than it would have been with more sensible policies.

 

According to the Conservative manifesto ‘more borrowing – and the extra debt interest that brings – means that there is less money to spend on schools and hospitals’. But if less borrowing reduces the size of the economy – and therefore of government revenues – there will be even less to spend on schools and hospitals.

 

‘More spending means higher taxes for hardworking people’ – not if it causes the economy to grow more than the spending.

Failure to control the national debt would be a ‘moral failing’ by ‘leaving our children or grandchildren with debts that they could never hope to repay’. How many people realise that over 60% of the holders of British government debt are British residents, for whom it will be an asset to leave to their children and grandchildren?

 

The Conservative narrative has become the Overton Window of our day, outside of which policies are unthinkable. But sooner or later reality will break in, and what is now unthinkable will become sensible again. But not in this election.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/former-tory-peer-calls-conservative-5525765

http://www.skidelskyr.com/site/article/conservative-election-manifesto/

[Batman]

Reminds me of your mum.

 

how do you know her?

[pap]

Look at that (food bank) growth!

 

[CB Fry]

how do you know her?

[Lord Duckhunter]

a slum landlord?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040796/Labour-s-queen-hypocrisy-MP-sneered-white-van-man-attacks-Tory-right-buy-plan-thought-bought-1million-housing-association-home-rents-out.html

 

Typical leftie , do as I say not as I do.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Look at that (food bank) growth!

 

 

I'd be interested to see stats on whether cigarette or alcohol use has gone down for the people who use them - you don't get fag banks, but I'm sure if you did then the use of these would have gone up instead of food banks...

[trousers]

Look at that (food bank) growth!

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/10517718/Food-banks-the-unpalatable-truth.html

 

Have you got any more of those maps pap? Would be interesting to compare the UK with other 'developed world' countries

[pap]

Typical leftie , do as I say not as I do.

 

2015: Vote UKIP. Don't let all those foreigners take your jobs.

2011: English people is shít, innit. I employ loads of foreigners to do their jobs.

 

I'd be interested to see stats on whether cigarette or alcohol use has gone down for the people who use them - you don't get fag banks, but I'm sure if you did then the use of these would have gone up instead of food banks...

 

No you wouldn't. You're saying "I would like to ignore people starving so I would prefer to pretend that they are all feckless smokers and alcoholics, and are using the food banks to ensure they don't miss out".

 

Sparkling self-destruction as always, UJ.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/10517718/Food-banks-the-unpalatable-truth.html Have you got any more of those maps pap? Would be interesting to compare the UK with other 'developed world' countries

 

"I would like to feel better about the foodbank situation, so instead of concentrating on what has happened here and here alone, I want to know that we're eating better than French and Germans. I won't feel as guilty about tucking into this steak if I just know that there are kids that are eating less and housed worse, somewhere else in the developed world. Because that's relevant to the UK".

Edited 16 April, 2015 by pap

[CB Saint]

Food waste in this country is a scandal. When farmers have to plough in a field of perfectly good vegetables just because they are too big/small/knobblely for the supermarkets, just so the consumer can have a perfectly formed carrot (which they will then chop up!!!) you have to wonder what on earth is going on.

[trousers]

"I would like to feel better about the foodbank situation, so instead of concentrating on what has happened here and here alone, I want to know that we're eating better than French and Germans. I won't feel as guilty about tucking into this steak if I just know that there are kids that are eating less and housed worse, somewhere else in the developed world. Because that's relevant to the UK".

 

Just answering "no" would have sufficed

 

p.s. probably best to leave the 'putting words into other people's mouths' to verbal as he's much better at it than your good self. He even gets it right every now and then

Edited 16 April, 2015 by trousers

[pap]

Just answering "no" would have sufficed

 

Found it on a FB page, skip. I did actually try to track it for you, but couldn't find anything more substantive.

 

P.s. probably best to leave the 'putting words into other people's mouths' to verbal as he's much better at it than your good self

 

He is, but then to be fair, he probably had to start somewhere.

 

And I'm not really that far off the mark, am I?

[stug76]

I'd vote for the devil himself if it kept the tories out and would never pretend otherwise.

I get it. You seem pretty typical of a lot of people on this thread who don't appear to have the intelligence to make an informed decision based on the facts presented to them, instead preferring to rely on a preconceived political bias.

[CB Fry]

I get it. You seem pretty typical of a lot of people on this thread who don't appear to have the intelligence to make an informed decision based on the facts presented to them, instead preferring to rely on a preconceived political bias.

That's a spectacularly stupid thing to say.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

2015: Vote UKIP. Don't let all those foreigners take your jobs.

2011: English people is shít, innit. I employ loads of foreigners to do their jobs.

 

 

 

No you wouldn't. You're saying "I would like to ignore people starving so I would prefer to pretend that they are all feckless smokers and alcoholics, and are using the food banks to ensure they don't miss out".

 

Sparkling self-destruction as always, UJ.

 

 

 

"I would like to feel better about the foodbank situation, so instead of concentrating on what has happened here and here alone, I want to know that we're eating better than French and Germans. I won't feel as guilty about tucking into this steak if I just know that there are kids that are eating less and housed worse, somewhere else in the developed world. Because that's relevant to the UK".

 

So you don't think that a proportion of people that use food banks smoke then? Happy for people to use food from food banks (I give to them), but not if they choose to spend their money on cigarettes and alcohol because there is a free food service they can use.

Edited 16 April, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[View From The Top]

I get it. You seem pretty typical of a lot of people on this thread who don't appear to have the intelligence to make an informed decision based on the facts presented to them, instead preferring to rely on a preconceived political bias.

 

Oh I'm very intelligent hence wanting to keep the tories out.

 

Now run along and let the adults bicker.

[View From The Top]

So you don't think that a proportion of people that use food banks smoke then?

 

I've seen foodbanks in action in Smethwick, about 4 years ago the 1st time. Jesus what a downbeaten mess of humanity I witnessed. These folk really couldn't have fallen much further. Strangely my reaction wasn't "f**k em, I bet they smoke" but immense gratefulness at what I had in life & pity for them.

[trousers]

Found it on a FB page, skip. I did actually try to track it for you, but couldn't find anything more substantive.

 

 

 

He is, but then to be fair, he probably had to start somewhere.

 

And I'm not really that far off the mark, am I?

The reason for seeking to place the UK situation into some kind of wider context is to ascertain whether or not the Tory bashing that food banks inevitably gives rise to is totally justified, or whether what we're actually witnessing is a wider phenomena that doesn't necessarily have its roots in 'nasty UK Tory party' policy. As a fellow IT man I thought you might approve of such root cause analysis and thinking outside of the box.

 

Going back to your map, are you saying that food banks are an accurate measure of 'food poverty'? If you are, then, by logical extrapolation, you're also saying that there were no people in food poverty in the decades before Labour introduced food banks in the noughties, which of course is nonsense.

 

For as long as 'food poverty' exists, I see two solutions to getting food onto people's plates: give them money to go and buy food or give them food. It could be argued that the latter of those two options is the most efficient, and likely to succeed, of the two.

 

And yes, of course, the ultimate solution is to eradicate food poverty altogether but I don't see mankind sorting that one out any time soon. Successive Labour and Tory governments certainly haven't in living memory (and beyond)

Edited 16 April, 2015 by trousers

[hypochondriac]

I've seen foodbanks in action in Smethwick, about 4 years ago the 1st time. Jesus what a downbeaten mess of humanity I witnessed. These folk really couldn't have fallen much further. Strangely my reaction wasn't "f**k em, I bet they smoke" but immense gratefulness at what I had in life & pity for them.

 

Pretty sure this has been discussed before. From talking to people involved with foodbanks, my recollection was that for some people it really was their last resort (fair enough) whilst for others it was felt that free food had been publicised and they felt that they could use it without having to spend their own money so why not? I was told that quite a few were moaning about what they received because they wanted something better as well. I'm certain that some people genuinely use them but I'm also sure that numbers have increased because they have received hugely more publicity and not everyone who uses them does so because they have no other choice.

[pap]

The reason for seeking to place the UK situation into some kind of wider context is to ascertain whether or not the Tory bashing that food banks inevitably gives rise to is totally justified, or whether what we're actually witnessing is a wider phenomena that doesn't necessarily have its roots in 'nasty UK Tory party' policy. As a fellow IT man I thought you might approve of such root cause analysis and thinking outside of the box.

 

Going back to your map, are you saying that food banks are an accurate measure of 'food poverty'? If you are, then, by logical extrapolation, you're also saying that there were no people in food poverty in the decades before Labour introduced food banks in the noughties, which of course is nonsense.

 

For as long as 'food poverty' exists, I see two solutions to getting food onto people's plates: give them money to go and buy food or give them food. It could be argued that the latter of those two options is the most efficient, and likely to succeed, of the two.

 

And yes, of course, the ultimate solution is to eradicate food poverty altogether but I don't see mankind sorting that one out any time soon. Successive Labour and Tory governments certainly haven't in living memory (and beyond)

 

Who knew?

 

A little bit of shame is the precursor to a fully-loaded and original trousers opinion. I may try that more often!

 

Take the map as it is. Those local authorities didn't have food banks in 2009. They do now. I find it amazing that proud Conservative citizens are on-board with seeing their fellow citizens beg for food. It really isn't us.

[trousers]

Who knew?

 

A little bit of shame is the precursor to a fully-loaded and original trousers opinion. I may try that more often!

 

Take the map as it is. Those local authorities didn't have food banks in 2009. They do now. I find it amazing that proud Conservative citizens are on-board with seeing their fellow citizens beg for food. It really isn't us.

If someone knocked on your door today and said they were hungry, would you give them money to go and buy food or invite them in to eat with you?

 

(And, to answer your next question....no, I haven't thought that analogy through one jot)

[pap]

If someone knocked on your door today and said they were hungry, would you give them money to go and buy food or invite them in to eat with you?

 

(And, to answer your next question....no, I haven't thought that analogy through one jot)

 

If someone wanted to avoid looking the issue of food banks in the eye, would they address the issue or create a hypothetical that doesn't have any bearing on the real problems people face?

[trousers]

If someone wanted to avoid looking the issue of food banks in the eye, would they address the issue or create a hypothetical that doesn't have any bearing on the real problems people face?

Probably best to direct that at the people who oversaw the introduction of food banks in the first place...

[saint si]

so if i gave you £60,000 to £100,00 less for what your house is worth then whats its worth,you would be very happy and not class that as stealing:lol: god i heard some bs in my time.

 

Of course I wouldn't be happy to sell my house under market value. But we're not talking about me, we're talking about the state. And one of the functions of the state is to redistribute wealth from the more fortunate ("the rich") to the less fortunate ("the poor"). Nobody in any party really disagrees with this (no matter what people think about the Tories!) - the only questions that are really up for grabs are "how?", and "how much?".

 

Is it also "stealing" that the government coerces with my employer to forcibly take thousands of pounds of my money from me annually and then just gives it away to other people who I have never even met?!

 

What about the controlled rent on council houses? By your argument, asking for tenants to pay rent below the market rate is also short changing the tax payer.

 

Regardless of the other rights and wrongs of right-to-buy (and there are some quite interesting arguments and points in this thread beneath all the mud slinging) selling state-owned property at a discounted rate to tenants (who are on average going to be some of society's less well-off) is LITERALLY a redistribution of wealth.

[Wes Tender]

If the SNP get into power in whatever capacity, they won't be able to wield much influence because of all the other parties that would be involved in a "Rainbow" coalition. Also as CB pointed out, the demand for a referendum is at its lowest now so they will have to focus on policy rather than banging on about that. It's a put up/shut up scenario - with no chance of a referendum they'll have to practice what they preach and show to the voters in Scotland that they can actually deliver on what they say. Personally I think they can, they have some talented politicians in their ranks and will have a big bloc of MPs in the Commons going by recent polls. Working with Labour, Lib Dem, Greens etc would provide a pretty balanced left-leaning coalition that may actually gather the support of the people unlike the previous incumbents.

 

Firstly I challenge the assertion that an alliance of Labour, the SNP, Lib Dems and Greens could be called balanced, especially in the case of the SNP, whose aim is to break up the UK.

 

Secondly, I also challenge your assertion that the last coalition government did not have the support of the people. As the two parties gained the majority of votes, that is patently nonsense.

[pap]

Probably best to direct that at the people who oversaw the introduction of food banks in the first place...

 

I think not. What we've been discussing is the rise of food banks between 2009 and 2013.

 

1.5 million people now rely on them. That's up from 41K in 2009.

 

Look it in the eye, trousers. This is a direct consequence of Conservative Party policy. 36 times more people use foodbanks.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I've seen foodbanks in action in Smethwick, about 4 years ago the 1st time. Jesus what a downbeaten mess of humanity I witnessed. These folk really couldn't have fallen much further. Strangely my reaction wasn't "f**k em, I bet they smoke" but immense gratefulness at what I had in life & pity for them.

 

But of you found out that they chose to smoke over buying food, does that not make you feel they are cheating the system a bit? Fags cost 9 quid for twenty now...

[hypochondriac]

But of you found out that they chose to smoke over buying food, does that not make you feel they are cheating the system a bit? Fags cost 9 quid for twenty now...

 

I have still never seen any evidence that real poverty exists in this country. Go to Kenya and see people actually doing of starvation and then talk about poverty.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11280307/Some-people-using-foodbanks-buy-cigarettes-instead-of-food.html

[saintbletch]

That's a spectacularly stupid thing to say.

 

Now, now CB Fry. I'm not sure stupid is the correct pejorative.

 

Given that this post...

 

I think that at best this thread shows that most people have a political leaning and any amount of 'debate' of which there has been basically none here, is going to change any body's vote.

For me, I just can't believe that anyone is going to vote for the Labour/SNP. If they get in we'll have to live with a government that's sole purpose is to break up the very country it governs. You can forget the economy, you can forget the NHS, education, defense. Every thing will be a compromise on devolved power to Scotland.

 

...was followed by this post...

 

I get it. You seem pretty typical of a lot of people on this thread who don't appear to have the intelligence to make an informed decision based on the facts presented to them, instead preferring to rely on a preconceived political bias.

 

...I'd replace stupid with hypocritical, or at a push ironic.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I have still never seen any evidence that real poverty exists in this country. Go to Kenya and see people actually doing of starvation and then talk about poverty.

 

It's the children that suffer a lot of the time due to their parents poor choices that I feel sorry for.

[trousers]

I have still never seen any evidence that real poverty exists in this country. Go to Kenya and see people actually doing of starvation and then talk about poverty.

Hush ye! Don't cha know that the Saintsweb thought police don't allow comparisons with other countries?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I have still never seen any evidence that real poverty exists in this country. Go to Kenya and see people actually doing of starvation and then talk about poverty.

 

It's the children that suffer a lot of the time due to their parents poor choices that I feel sorry for.

[trousers]

I think not. What we've been discussing is the rise of food banks between 2009 and 2013.

 

1.5 million people now rely on them. That's up from 41K in 2009.

 

Look it in the eye, trousers. This is a direct consequence of Conservative Party policy. 36 times more people use foodbanks.

What did people who couldn't afford to eat do before food banks existed? You're using food banks as a direct measure of food poverty. How many people were in 'food poverty' in 1982 compared to today (for example)?

Edited 16 April, 2015 by trousers

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Now, now CB Fry. I'm not sure stupid is the correct pejorative.

 

Given that this post...

 

 

 

...was followed by this post...

 

 

 

...I'd replace stupid with hypocritical, or at a push ironic.

 

You win.

[saintbletch]

I think that at best this thread shows that most people have a political leaning and any amount of 'debate' of which there has been basically none here, is going to change any body's vote.

For me, I just can't believe that anyone is going to vote for the Labour/SNP. If they get in we'll have to live with a government that's sole purpose is to break up the very country it governs. You can forget the economy, you can forget the NHS, education, defense. Every thing will be a compromise on devolved power to Scotland.

 

Now that I've had a bit of fun, you deserve a better response.

 

In the main I agree with the bold text above.

 

I mean, if leadership debates on TV and manifesto launches barely move the entrenched positions of voters, then it'd be a bit much to expect a politics thread on a backwater, football message board to move people.

 

That said, I do find my views swayed (if not, perhaps changed completely) on specific subjects by reading other perspectives on here.