spot on,
and its why they lost people are fed up with being told they are sexist and homophobic for no reason what so ever,

The left would have your free speech if they could

This offended by everything and PC culture is a massive detriment to society

To an extent, but we mustn't go too far the other way and justify people voting in a complete imbecile as the most powerful man in the world as a legitimate 'pushback' against undue pressure. Frustration is no excuse for throwing all sense out of the window.

Sweeping statements from both sides are what is most damaging. As demonstrated by this article itself, and the first and doubtless many of the following comments.

Think you're referring to Johnathan Pie, he's a political comedian but he makes some excellent points. I think there's definitely an element of truth in what he saying. There definitely seems to be a sort of online 'militant left' that shame people for right wing views.
However I equally think that it can be quite difficult to debate with people who hold more traditionally right wing views as sometimes they're not that clued up on what the issues actually are.
I think the moral of the story is, you're just as likely to be a dock, whether you're left or right, so take your head out your Yaris. (Last sentance addressed to hypothetical dock head, not the OP)

I do not agree, the problem the left faces is that it uses facts. The right is more prone to "feelings."

So when you identify that feelings are not supported with facts, people get precious and try and hang onto the PC culture gone mad.

There are a lot of misconceptions about both sides. The most common ones are;

1. The left wants uncontrolled immigration
2. Lefties think anyone who complains about immigration is a racist
3. The left want to suppress speech, it is ballacks

The problem the left faces is trying to convince people that their feelings are not based on fact

For example, you hear a lot of right wingers talking about being overrun with migrants and how we are a soft touch for illegals and are a preferred destination.

But when you look at the facts, you see that we are not in the top 5 destinations for migrants and have one of the fewest populations of migrants to the populace in Westen Europe

We are however number 1 at being concerned about migrants.

So there is an issue there but it can get frustrating when you present facts to people and they refuse to believe evidence in black and white.

This is an extreme case but it gives a good idea of some of the issues;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFQhw3VVToQ

comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 3 minutes ago
Sweeping statements from both sides are what is most damaging. As demonstrated by this article itself, and the first and doubtless many of the following comments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 2 minutes ago
I do not agree, the problem the left faces is that it uses facts. The right is more prone to "feelings."

So when you identify that feelings are not supported with facts, people get precious and try and hang onto the PC culture gone mad.

There are a lot of misconceptions about both sides. The most common ones are;

1. The left wants uncontrolled immigration
2. Lefties think anyone who complains about immigration is a racist
3. The left want to suppress speech, it is ballacks

The problem the left faces is trying to convince people that their feelings are not based on fact

For example, you hear a lot of right wingers talking about being overrun with migrants and how we are a soft touch for illegals and are a preferred destination.

But when you look at the facts, you see that we are not in the top 5 destinations for migrants and have one of the fewest populations of migrants to the populace in Westen Europe

We are however number 1 at being concerned about migrants.

So there is an issue there but it can get frustrating when you present facts to people and they refuse to believe evidence in black and white.

This is an extreme case but it gives a good idea of some of the issues;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFQhw3VVToQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you on the issue you raise, but it's quite difficult to tell someone, essentially, that they're wrong, without sounding like you're calling someone an idiot.
I think this often makes it harder to change someone's mind, and actually just drives people into silence until they walk into the polling booth, hence the polls all being wrong

"There are a lot of misconceptions about both sides. The most common ones are;

1. The left wants uncontrolled immigration
2. Lefties think anyone who complains about immigration is a racist
3. The left want to suppress speech, it is ballacks"

Sorry for the large copy but I think the fact is that the traditional alignment of left vs right is not true any more. There is no real alignment of homogenous political views against a left vs right schism.

I agree with the poster to an extent but is the effect of the dumbing down in politics and not solely due to the left. Left or right, both shout out about non-events to the extent where it has become difficult to have rational discourse anywhere (eg. the campaign vs Corbyn where the claims regarding the level of violence amongst his supporters was blown way out of proportion).

comment by Wonder Man (U11164)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 2 minutes ago
I do not agree, the problem the left faces is that it uses facts. The right is more prone to "feelings."

So when you identify that feelings are not supported with facts, people get precious and try and hang onto the PC culture gone mad.

There are a lot of misconceptions about both sides. The most common ones are;

1. The left wants uncontrolled immigration
2. Lefties think anyone who complains about immigration is a racist
3. The left want to suppress speech, it is ballacks

The problem the left faces is trying to convince people that their feelings are not based on fact

For example, you hear a lot of right wingers talking about being overrun with migrants and how we are a soft touch for illegals and are a preferred destination.

But when you look at the facts, you see that we are not in the top 5 destinations for migrants and have one of the fewest populations of migrants to the populace in Westen Europe

We are however number 1 at being concerned about migrants.

So there is an issue there but it can get frustrating when you present facts to people and they refuse to believe evidence in black and white.

This is an extreme case but it gives a good idea of some of the issues;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFQhw3VVToQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you on the issue you raise, but it's quite difficult to tell someone, essentially, that they're wrong, without sounding like you're calling someone an idiot.
I think this often makes it harder to change someone's mind, and actually just drives people into silence until they walk into the polling booth, hence the polls all being wrong
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly

They accuse you then of being elitist, arrogant and the usual stuff.

They would rather do that than look within themselves and admit, we are wrong about this stuff.

We need to have debates about these issues but people should be open to facts.

Facts are very important

IMO migration (UK) has been demonised. And in part, used (by all sides of the political spectrum) as a vehicle to push through a political agenda.

Many people in the UK voted to leave the EU thinking that in doing so, the UK would have greater control of migrants.

But the term ‘migrant’ covers a vast pool of people. From students, (a vast proportion of UK migrants) to economic immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, etc etc.

Until the terminolgy and classifaction of migration is expanded then the political football that is immigration will remain. From all sides.

comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 23 seconds ago
IMO migration (UK) has been demonised. And in part, used (by all sides of the political spectrum) as a vehicle to push through a political agenda.

Many people in the UK voted to leave the EU thinking that in doing so, the UK would have greater control of migrants.

But the term ‘migrant’ covers a vast pool of people. From students, (a vast proportion of UK migrants) to economic immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, etc etc.

Until the terminolgy and classifaction of migration is expanded then the political football that is immigration will remain. From all sides.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The thing that annoys me the most is the perception that if I am a liberal, it means I am a liberal in every situation. There are things I have liberal views about and there are things I have conservative views about.

No sane, rational human being is one thing.

comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 2 minutes ago
The thing that annoys me the most is the perception that if I am a liberal, it means I am a liberal in every situation. There are things I have liberal views about and there are things I have conservative views about.

No sane, rational human being is one thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This, for me is the problem with a two party system. You have people nailing themselves to the mast of one party or the other, when the solution is usually a compromise of the two

"Many people in the UK voted to leave the EU thinking that in doing so, the UK would have greater control of migrants. "

Yup and in the farce that was Brexit the migrants that are economic drains on the system (if we reduce it to just such terms) are non-EU ones over which we should have control.

Having said that and in response to MuDDs initial post, one point to make is that there is concern over the increasing UK population. The UK is one of the most developed populated countries (particularly given large tracts are not sustainably liveable). That shouldn't be dismissed (although take your point you are arguing about the debate being destroyed rather than the issue itself).

comment by Wonder Man (U11164)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by ManUtdDaredevil (U9612)
posted 2 minutes ago
The thing that annoys me the most is the perception that if I am a liberal, it means I am a liberal in every situation. There are things I have liberal views about and there are things I have conservative views about.

No sane, rational human being is one thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This, for me is the problem with a two party system. You have people nailing themselves to the mast of one party or the other, when the solution is usually a compromise of the two
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. And many on both sides see any compromise as the work of the devil, a weakness to be avoided at all costs rather than a rational and sensible approach to societal living.

I agree. The left have started using labels too freely to cancel debate. Its like mysoginy. You only have to disagree with a feminist for her to label you a misogynist. There that kills that argument. If your views on foreign aid and restrictions on entry of of foreigners if slightly right of centre you are racist. These labels were created to identify extreme people who held extreme views. Now they are just used to describe anyone who disagrees with a leftie. Of course its a double sided coin; the more these labels are thrown around so liberally the less they lose their impact. The stupid lefties should be more responsible with thee labels. A further problem is social media. Words and online bullying are the weapon of the left (although increasingly so it violent protest).

I was in US 3 weeks before the election and before i went i was pro hilary and anti trump. After spending a week there and seeing the media wide anti trump campaign and and crazy feminists trying to make him out to be teh most evil mysoginist that ever lived I turned completely pro Trump - I couldn't stand the left and their bullying holier than though approach.

What really cracked me up was the democrat slogan of "when they go low we go high" nonsense. They continuously focussed on personal unfounded attacks on Trump. Their attitude was so what if Hilary has been under an FBI investigation, made a fortune from abusing her role in selling interviews to the banks and is a pro war hawk in favour of invading Syria, Iran and taking us to the brink with Russia- that's nothing compared to this man who made a couple of sexist jokes. Oh and Trump corporation employs more women and mexicans than Clinton does.

comment by Rover the hill and far away (U7040)
posted 3 minutes ago
"Many people in the UK voted to leave the EU thinking that in doing so, the UK would have greater control of migrants. "

Yup and in the farce that was Brexit the migrants that are economic drains on the system (if we reduce it to just such terms) are non-EU ones over which we should have control.

Having said that and in response to MuDDs initial post, one point to make is that there is concern over the increasing UK population. The UK is one of the most developed populated countries (particularly given large tracts are not sustainably liveable). That shouldn't be dismissed (although take your point you are arguing about the debate being destroyed rather than the issue itself).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a widely held but inaccurate belief in relation to ‘economic migrants.’

In that the ONS and Migration Watch figures year in year out, demonstrate UK nationals are a considerably larger burden to the benefit system. And economic migrants’ are net contributors to GDP (circa £20 billion each year).

"In that the ONS and Migration Watch figures year in year out, demonstrate UK nationals are a considerably larger burden to the benefit system. And economic migrants’ are net contributors to GDP (circa £20 billion each year)."

The argument to that could be that the UK nationals are an increasing burden because the immigrant population are nicking their jobs. Not my argument, but not a wholly unreasonable one either.

Of course this is really down to the employers wanting to increase their margins (and presumably the consumer too?) rather than the immigrants themselves - but they're an easier target. As they always have been since the dawn of man.

"This is a widely held but inaccurate belief in relation to ‘economic migrants.’ "

Really? This link suggests otherwise - http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25880373

Apologies for the error, I used EU, not EEA

Extracts

"When we do that, we see that between 1995-2011, on average each EEA immigrant put about £6,000 more into the public purse than they took out.
Non-EEA immigrants each took out about £21,000 more than they put in during that period."

"On average, each native Briton took out roughly £11,000 more than they put in between 1995-2011.
So to conclude, on average only Europeans are putting in more to the UK public purse than they're taking out. At least that was the case between 1995 and 2011."

I was in US 3 weeks before the election and before i went i was pro hilary and anti trump. After spending a week there and seeing the media wide anti trump campaign and and crazy feminists trying to make him out to be teh most evil mysoginist that ever lived I turned completely pro Trump - I couldn't stand the left and their bullying holier than though approach.
------------
So you basically admit that your preference for either candidate was not based whatsoever on policies or suitability for the role, but rather on social standing?

This is why I think democracy is a great concept on paper but boiiocks in practice.

comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 30 seconds ago
I was in US 3 weeks before the election and before i went i was pro hilary and anti trump. After spending a week there and seeing the media wide anti trump campaign and and crazy feminists trying to make him out to be teh most evil mysoginist that ever lived I turned completely pro Trump - I couldn't stand the left and their bullying holier than though approach.
------------
So you basically admit that your preference for either candidate was not based whatsoever on policies or suitability for the role, but rather on social standing?

This is why I think democracy is a great concept on paper but boiiocks in practice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it was only when I got to the US and sought information that i found out what the policies where. Like I say Hilary is corrupt and her policies are hawkish especially towards Iran and Russia. That's not a world I want. But you would never have found that out in UK especially as the BBC forgot its role as independent reporter of facts and became partizan

That appears to include anyone not born in the UK, and I suspect includes pensions under the heading of 'benefits'.

comment by Rover the hill and far away (U7040)
posted 21 seconds ago
"This is a widely held but inaccurate belief in relation to ‘economic migrants.’ "

Really? This link suggests otherwise - http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25880373

Apologies for the error, I used EU, not EEA

Extracts

"When we do that, we see that between 1995-2011, on average each EEA immigrant put about £6,000 more into the public purse than they took out.
Non-EEA immigrants each took out about £21,000 more than they put in during that period."

"On average, each native Briton took out roughly £11,000 more than they put in between 1995-2011.
So to conclude, on average only Europeans are putting in more to the UK public purse than they're taking out. At least that was the case between 1995 and 2011."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1995-2011?

It’s 2016. Those figures are historic and not relevent to the lie of the land today.

The problem however is more localised. And in truth lies firmly at the door of the UK benefit system, rather than EU (or non-EU) economic migrants.

For example 90% of all agri workers here in NI are migrants. UK nationals (that are out of work) will not do this type of work as the UK benefit system will cater for their needs.

" But you would never have found that out in UK"

Don't get that. The internet is quite large and Google will help you find anything, almost literally, anything at all.

comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 10 minutes ago
I was in US 3 weeks before the election and before i went i was pro hilary and anti trump. After spending a week there and seeing the media wide anti trump campaign and and crazy feminists trying to make him out to be teh most evil mysoginist that ever lived I turned completely pro Trump - I couldn't stand the left and their bullying holier than though approach.
------------
So you basically admit that your preference for either candidate was not based whatsoever on policies or suitability for the role, but rather on social standing?

This is why I think democracy is a great concept on paper but boiiocks in practice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
USA elections for the role of President have become basically a celebrity competition akin to the X Factor.

If the 2 candidates that contested the recent election really are the best ones that the most powerful country in the world can put forward then Heaven help us for future elections.

People are voting for the candidate they like/dislike more rather then on political manifestos or what can be done to benefit the nation.