Originally posted by Beniboybling
who dat
Nick Clegg, the man got massacred for allowing the passing of a tuition fee rise which he couldn't actually stop. People legitimately appear to have expected him to vote it down, break down the government, trigger a snap election and put the country through chaos during a recession just so young people had to actually pay for their own tuition...
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well I mean that wasn't the purpose of that analogy, the purpose of that analogy was that either between Hillary and Trump or Corbyn and May, it only makes sense to me for someone to vote for either of them because they viewed the other candidate as worse, in which case even if you want to argue Hillary>>Trump, it still wouldn't make sense to me to actually want Hillary as president as opposed to just not wanting Trump to be president.
A fair point, but you'll never agree 100% with any politician, so by your logic every election in history would be between the 'lesser of two evils'. I don't see anyone else in the democratic party I would have wanted above Clinton (except maybe Biden) so I don't see it as a 'lesser of two evils' election just because there's parts of her ideology I don't agree with.
Contrastingly there were much better politicians around in the UK.
Originally posted by Blackknighting
May is a healthier Hillary clinton and Corbyn is Sanders on steroids.
From an incredibly basic perspective, I guess, yeh. I think the only real comparison between May and Clinton though is that they both felt their lead strong enough that they could be genuine about what they'd accomplish. Neither peddled pipe dreams, and because the electorate are fickle, both suffered for it.
For example, Hillary refusing to promise free tuition to everyone (even though in an ideal world she wanted it) and Theresa May's woefully unpopular but incredibly necessary 'dementia tax'
Yo @Deronn_solo, you like raps, tell me what you think of this:
Originally posted by Selenial
Nick Clegg, the man got massacred for allowing the passing of a tuition fee rise which he couldn't actually stop. People legitimately appear to have expected him to vote it down, break down the government, trigger a snap election and put the country through chaos during a recession
No they expected him to tell the Tory's that Lib Dem couldn't support that Bill Before the bill was even announced.
Then it would be upto Tory's to decide if they wanted a stable government, or if it was more important for them to TRIPLE tuition fees.
Nick Clegg broke his promise to students who were the main supporters of Lib Dems, which is what completely destroyed that party. He deserved to go last election, given the 40 other Lib Dem MP's that paid for his massive blunder.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
No they expected him to tell the Tory's that Lib Dem couldn't support that Bill Before the bill was even announced.Then it would be upto Tory's to decide if they wanted a stable government, or if it was more important for them to TRIPLE tuition fees.
Nick Clegg broke his promise to students who were the main supporters of Lib Dems, which is what completely destroyed that party. He deserved to go last election, given the 40 other Lib Dem MP's that paid for his massive blunder.
?
Well that was baseless. The Lib Dems made it abundantly clear to the conservative government in coalition talks that they would not support an increase in fees, and Nick Clegg promised the country that. The tories pushed through the bill in November 2010 because they were 5% up on their general election vote according to polls that usually underrepresented them, while the Liberal Democrats were down and labour was barely even with their election result.
The conservative party pushed the bill through because if the Liberal Democrats backed down and caused a breakdown of the coalition, it would be an excuse for Cameron to call an election in which his party stood a very good chance of actually gaining the majority in parliament, while the Lib Dems get shafted because they're blamed for the election.
Realistically, Nick Clegg had absolutely no choice but to back Cameron's bill, or he'd have found himself with little influence over government policy in the opposition benches, while the very bill that he defeated simply gets passed in the next parliament by a now tory majority.
Originally posted by Selenial
?Well that was baseless.
No it wasn't. Nick Clegg was responsible for the destruction of the Lib Dems by supporting that bill, which he absolutely did not have to.
Originally posted by Selenial
The Lib Dems made it abundantly clear to the conservative government in coalition talks that they would not support an increase in fees, and Nick Clegg promised the country that.
So Nick lied 👆
That clearly wasn't a condition of the coalition talks. If it was then it was Tory's who were breaking the coalition agreement. And yet Clegg still bent over for them.
You're only making him look even worse.
Originally posted by Selenial
The tories pushed through the bill in November 2010 because they were 5% up on their general election vote according to polls that usually underrepresented them, while the Liberal Democrats were down and labour was barely even with their election result.The conservative party pushed the bill through because if the Liberal Democrats backed down and caused a breakdown of the coalition, it would be an excuse for Cameron to call an election in which his party stood a very good chance of actually gaining the majority in parliament, while the Lib Dems get shafted because they're blamed for the election.
And look what happened. When the general election did come around the Tory's won anyway, and the Lib Dem's got absolutely destroyed.
Why? Because Tory didn't shaft over their own voters.
Originally posted by Selenial
Realistically, Nick Clegg had absolutely no choice but to back Cameron's bill, or he'd have found himself with little influence over government policy in the opposition benches, while the very bill that he defeated simply gets passed in the next parliament by a now tory majority.
Absolute nonsense. Of course he had a choice. The guy doesn't defend his decision himself. He himself apologized to his voters for that mistake, wishing he could take it back, but it was too little too late.
He will go down in history as the guy who destroyed Lib Dems. How many years do you think it will take them to get back to their 50 seat 3rd party status?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/13/health/new-pride-flag-colors-trnd/index.html
Look at how ugly they're making our flag. 🙁
Also gotta love how pride supposedly doesn't represent people of color despite the fact some of the first prides were set up by black transgender people, lol.
Originally posted by |King Joker|
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/13/health/new-pride-flag-colors-trnd/index.htmlLook at how ugly they're making our flag. 🙁
Also gotta love how pride supposedly doesn't represent people of color despite the fact some of the first prides were set up by black transgender people, lol.
I couldn't care less about anything involving politics or whatever and even I know that's just making the flag look dumb. Those colors don't flow naturally with the rest and just making the flag look stupid as those specific colors stand out.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
No it wasn't. Nick Clegg was responsible for the destruction of the Lib Dems by supporting that bill, which he absolutely did not have to.
'No it wasn't baseless, here let me spout my opinion some more with no factual basis to prove it!!11!1!'
So Nick lied 👆That clearly wasn't a condition of the coalition talks. If it was then it was Tory's who were breaking the coalition agreement. And yet Clegg still bent over for them.
You're only making him look even worse.
You have an awfully simplistic view of how government works, just because someone goes into coalition talks with an objective about policy does not mean they should defend that policy to their dying breath no matter what.
Absolute nonsense. Of course he had a choice. The guy doesn't defend his decision himself. He himself apologized to his voters for that mistake, wishing he could take it back, but it was too little too late.He will go down in history as the guy who destroyed Lib Dems. How many years do you think it will take them to get back to their 50 seat 3rd party status?
He 'apologised' for his choice in an attempt to win voters back, that doesn't mean the decision he made at the time was not the better one for the country.
You are attempting to argue that it was Nick Clegg's duty to put his party over his country and break down government that he had influence over (during a recession, costing thousands of jobs) just so his party could get obliterated in the next election regardless of his tuition fees vote and the Tory majority could arrive four years ahead of schedule, allowing them unrestricted jurisdiction over austerity cuts and social change.
Your only defence for why Nick Clegg was an idiot is that he chose the selfless route of damaging his party instead of his country. You are quite literally everything wrong with politics today, vote grabbing above all else, lmfao.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUDjRZ30SNo
Originally posted by Zenwolfpreach it. 🙁
I couldn't care less about anything involving politics or whatever and even I know that's just making the flag look dumb. Those colors don't flow naturally with the rest and just making the flag look stupid as those specific colors stand out.