This really lacks an understanding of what makes up a sound moral argument.

Morality should be grounded on what is longterm good for everyone, or least possible bad option, not shortterm satisfaction for a single person or two persons.

It's not morally justified to give drugs to someone because the will be happy in the shortterm if it means they run the risk of runing their life or other peoples life in the longterm.

Morality is all about holistically evaluating both short and longterm consequences for everyone. — xyz-zyx

I agree entirely. I think the problem stems from what is meant by objectivism. It's not objective truth. Rather, it seems to be about isolating the individual from all moral implication and responsibility. It is the objective self - not the objective reality; a philosophy attractive to adolescents seeking to establish an identity independent of their parents, and those who would seek to benefit from feeding this crap to kids!

Do we have a collective mind? Do we have a collective stomach?
Everyone is an individual with their mind and their own stomach. — AppLeo

Yes and yes. There's something called the collective consciousness that makes it very difficult to be an individual in an absolute sense. The language you use, the concepts from which your arguments are built - and the fact that I can understand what you're saying, are all the consequence of societies, and cultures. Then there's food production, which is - necessarily achieved by the division of labour, and the trade of goods and services.

It's not an absurd claim at all. And I don't understand how it's objective that groups matter more than individuals. — AppLeo

One reason the group is more important than the individual is that the group can protect individual rights, whereas the individual often can't.

How is it contrary? — AppLeo

To my mind, objectivism means objective truth. It's a matter of fact that human beings evolved as tribal animals, and later, tribes joined together to form societies and civilizations. Furthermore, natural and sexual selection craft the individual - in relation to the social and natural environment, giving them psychological characteristics, pre-dispositions and aptitudes - including an innate moral sense, built upon by experience. There is no self made man, no Robinson Crusoe, no individual as such. To ignore this is a contradiction of objectivism - if by objectivism you mean objective truth.

Why are these anyone's responsibilities? Why should these responsibilities matter? Who cares if we over fish, or deforest, or pollute the earth? Can someone give me a reason why these are problems and why anyone should be responsible for preventing these problems? — AppLeo

There are two reasons - I would argue. First is the question, what is my existence if there's no future? Why should I have children, or build a business, or write a book, if I have no genetic, economic or intellectual legacy? To please myself? A mere masturbation then? I'd go out of my way to deny a conception of myself as an empty issue.

Second, is the fact that previous generations struggled endlessly to build all this, which I inherit. My body and mind, crafted by evolution, my language and culture, the physical and ideological infrastructure of society, the house I live in, this computer. I didn't invent, or build any of that. Receiving all these gifts, I think there's a natural moral obligation to use what others struggled to build, and I inherited, to provide as well as possible for subsequent generations.

p.s. in your previous post, you attributed several quotes to me that are not mine.

I wouldn't view this issue morally. I'd view it psychologically, and suggest there probably are good reasons for such behaviour that have little or nothing to do with the person who has been ignored. I'd urge that person to put their personal feelings aside, and try to understand that the causes, and the effects of such a difficulty with relationships - are likely to be far worse than his own momentary sense of rejection.

In 'Enemies of an Open Society' (1947) Karl Popper warns that science as truth leads to tyranny. It seems to me that Rand is skirting this problem in a deliberate, but unsuccessful manner. The argument that there are no groups, only individuals - is an absurd notion, but necessary to maintain objectivism construed as "reality, reason, self-interest, and capitalism" - because, the natural implication from objectivist philosophical proscription, is an objectivist state - in which political and personal freedom, individuality, creativity and so forth - would be crushed out of existence by the need to 'make our representations conform' to an unarguable objective truth.

Rand's conceit - that people can live as individuals, without forming any kind of organisational structures - is necessary to avoid the implication that objective truth is unarguable - and thus, tyrannical. But individualism is contrary to the natural order of human evolution, our psychology and the entire history of society and civilization. That's a massive abdication from reality; and thus a contradiction of objectivism's own supposed values.

I say this as a philosopher who argues that we need to recognize the significance of scientific truth in order to meet challenges such as climate change, deforestation, overfishing, pollution and so on; but I do not ignore vast swathes of reality in order to do so. The larger part of my arguments are concerned with how to integrate scientific truth politically and economically - while avoiding these negative social implications. And I dislike intensely the impression formed from reading this thread - that objective truth should be used as an excuse to shirk all such responsibilities.

That's exactly what I would expect a zombie to ask. — frank

Only because you have no braaaaains!

Okay, but you should try to recognise that this doesn't support your explanation over and above mine, and you should try to recognise that a conspiracy theory is obviously not a fact, and therefore you shouldn't refer to it as factual as you have done. I'm absolutely fine with genuine facts, but the way that you're connecting the dots and exclaiming, "Ah ha!", is something else entirely. — S

So let me ask you a question - why did Cameron pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, adding "or vote me out" while simultaneously cancelling an EU ID card scheme that would have given the UK control over immigration? Why did Cameron keep Theresa May in post for six years - without a word of criticism as she failed to deliver on that pledge?

Also, take into consideration that Cameron made the referendum a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament, that he took to UK out of a centrist coalition in the EU, and joined right wing nationalists, and ultimately, put himself on the wrong side of his impossible, failed immigration pledge championing the Remain cause?

You keep calling it a conspiracy theory - but if you believed Cameron, you'd have voted Remain. He threatened WWIII - for goodness sake. Why would he do that if not to further sabotage his credibility and damage the Remain cause? Did he believe he could deliver tens of thousands? Did he believe WWIII would break out in the event of a Leave vote? Did you believe him? If not then, why now?

Yes, and pedantry is pedantry. If you think that I didn't know the outcome, and that I meant that the Tories won an overall majority in 2010, instead of it resulting in a hung parliament, then you're an idiot. Do I have to word everything I say as though I'm speaking to an idiot when I'm speaking with you? — S

Not at all. I know very well you can't pack every fact into every sentence. I meant to indicate that it's a significant fact that Cameron was in coalition from 2010. It scuppered his plans, and that's why he voted against the referendum petition in 2011 - because he didn't have a majority in the HoC, and that's why Theresa May was Home Secretary for a world record six years - while failing dramatically to deliver on an absurd immigration pledge on which Cameron had staked his political career! i.e. tens of thousands "or vote me out!"

As for your other comments, ad hominem attacks are not valid arguments. Stop being so sensitive. I don't know you. I'm commenting on your arguments... your myopic crazed arguments!

Oh, don't be so predictable. — S

The facts are the facts. But as you speak of predictability - is there any possibility at all that you would not dismiss an argument that suggested the 2016 referendum was corrupt - and agree that a legitimate democratic result cannot follow from a corrupt process?

If not the fact that Cameron was a brexiteer who campaigned dishonestly and lost on purpose for Remain, how about stolen facebook data used to target propaganda that incited racial hatred, or how about financial corruption and Russian interference?

My prediction is, that wouldn't change your mind either!

David Cameron is a cunning political creature, but not infallible. He was just being a chameleon out of self-interest. He was working for Michael Howard, someone who is well-known to be a strong Eurosceptic. Then, given his prior role in producing this kind of politics, and given his now vindicated belief that an EU referendum would be a pledge which would contribute towards his party winning the general election, which they did under him in 2010, he was just latching on to what he judged to be a winning strategy. Likewise with his pledge on reducing immigration to the tens of thousands. The more plausible explanation is that he simply judged making such pledges to be winning strategies. — S

Cameron didn't win the 2010 election though. It was a hung Parliament. The Tories were in coalition with the pro-eu Lib Dems. Think about that in relation to Cameron's 2010 silly immigration pledge - and the fact that Theresa May was the longest serving Home Secretary in living memory.

May and Cameron immediately cancelled an EU ID card scheme that would have given the UK control over EU immigration. May sacked the head of the Borders Agency, Brodie Clark, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the UK in 2015, and published those figures during the 2016 referendum campaign period.

Meanwhile, by championing Remain, Cameron put himself on the wrong side of his own failure on immigration - in a referendum he alone decided would happen, and forced on an unwilling Parliament!

That's not true.
— karl stone

Your constant fabrications have become tedious.

Cameron voted against an EU referendum in 2011.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2011-10-24-372-commons/mp/10777 — Inis

What fabrication? What have I fabricated? Everything I said is a checkable fact:


Cameron had been agitating for a referendum since he wrote the 2005 Conservative Party manifesto for Micheal Howard - using leave campaign rhetoric, word for word. UKIP were nowhere at that time. In a 2009 youtube video Cameron again demanded a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and made the same demand again in his 2010 manifesto - alongside his non-credible tens of thousands immigration pledge.

Only afterward did UKIP begin making electoral gains - largely due to courting the BNP, and organizing far right groups to vote in low turnout EU elections. Parliament debated and rejected a call for a referendum in 2011, by 485/111. Yet Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, and then made it a manifesto commitment in 2015 that could not be blocked by Parliament nor amended by the Lords.

It's simply untrue that Cameron was forced into a referendum he didn't want. So why do people believe it? The pertinent question is - how did Cameron end up on the wrong side of his own ridiculous immigration pledge in a referendum he alone provided for, that was all about immigration?

And what happened? Parliament debated it - and voted against holding a referendum by 485/111.
— karl stone

Cameron voted against a referendum in 2011.

So why did Cameron promise a referendum in 2013,
— karl stone

Because UKIP were at 10% in the polls. — Inis

That's not true. Cameron had been agitating for a referendum since he wrote the 2005 Conservative Party manifesto for Micheal Howard - using leave campaign rhetoric, word for word. UKIP were nowhere at that time. In a 2009 youtube video Cameron again demanded a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and made the same demand again in his 2010 manifesto - alongside his non-credible tens of thousands immigration pledge.

Only afterward did UKIP begin making electoral gains - largely due to courting the BNP, and organizing far right groups to vote in low turnout EU elections. Parliament debated and rejected a call for a referendum in 2011, by 485/111. Yet Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, and then made it a manifesto commitment in 2015 that could not be blocked by Parliament nor amended by the Lords.

It's simply untrue that Cameron was forced into a referendum he didn't want. So why do people believe it? The pertinent question is - how did Cameron end up on the wrong side of his own ridiculous immigration pledge in a referendum he alone provided for, that was all about immigration?

I urge you to try - just for laughs, but I assure you - you'd be wasting your time.
— karl stone

Is Riccardo suggesting that countries cooperate in order to maximise the total output? — Kippo

If by 'cooperate' you mean trade, then yes. Trade is supposed to maximize total output - and make everyone better off. I brought it up, and only now I'm reminded I don't like all the implications, particularly with regard to skills and employment. But still, where capital would otherwise be left idle it can promote inward investment and create new opportunities, I guess. It's so easy to dismiss an issue like trade deficits using a concept like this, and the supposition that everyone is better off, then when asked to explain - it's a whole can of worms - that last time, were the economics professor's problem. But I do remember he would caution against getting hung up on any one idea like that were a comprehensive explanation of how economies work. Worms everywhere! Can we move on?

Ah, okay - I see what you did there. No, I don't get involved in football. I don't play football, and I don't talk about it - because I don't know the first thing about it. Could you imagine me in the pub, shouting the odds at a crowd of football fans who have followed the game all their lives. That's what brexiteers are like.
— karl stone

The common Brexiteer is living proof that Neanderthals didn't go extinct all those years ago. — S

You seem to be ignoring Her Majesty's plea to find common ground. That can't be achieved by calling brexiteers stupid. Ignorance is not the same as stupidity. Being misled into voting for an unplanned, uncosted policy failure by corrupt politicians is not their fault.

It becomes harder to maintain that position when they are the guy in the pub who knows nothing, telling die hard fans how football should be played - but then, like Micheal Gove told them, "we've had enough of experts." It's not their fault!

You mean "they" shouldn't be so ignorant...
— karl stone

No, I meant you, following on from your football analogy. But yes, them too. — S

Ah, okay - I see what you did there. No, I don't get involved in football. I don't play football, and I don't talk about it - because I don't know the first thing about it. Could you imagine me in the pub, shouting the odds at a crowd of football fans who have followed the game all their lives. That's what brexiteers are like.

Actually, the campaign for an EU referendum can be traced back to 2011 when the cross-party People's Pledge group was formed. They took no position on EU membership, other than it should be put to the people. In 2011 a petition of 100,000 signatures calling for an EU referendum was handed into Downing Street. — Inis

And what happened? Parliament debated it - and voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. So why did Cameron promise a referendum in 2013, and make it a manifesto commitment in 2015 that could not be blocked by Parliament, or amended by the Lords? Do you call that democracy? It's a clear abuse of democratic process.

I cannot equate defrauding of the politically ignorant with the idea of 'the foolhardy masses.' I have a long term fascination with politics - but don't ask me anything about football. Is that foolhardy? No. You could easily deceive me into believing the ball was in - or offside, or whatever. It's just ignorance. And the Leave campaign played upon real grievances and concerns. The lie was that those real issues are the fault of the EU, and can be resolved by brexit. Those who voted Leave, the vast majority of them knew little or nothing about politics - and they were deceived. This isn't a matter of 'the foolhardy masses' - this is a matter of political corruption.
— karl stone

Blameworthy ignorance. You shouldn't be so gullible as to allow yourself to be easily deceived, and if you're going to get involved in the game, then you should at least do your homework. Many people were motivated to vote leave because of their own nationalist and anti-establishment sentiment. Some people don't listen to reason. Some people block it out. Some people believe what they want to believe. — S

You mean "they" shouldn't be so ignorant... but I say, an unplanned, uncosted policy failure should not have been put to the people in a referendum in the first place. The desire for this referendum does not originate with the people. It originates within the Tory Party. Whether you accept that Cameron was a brexiteer or continue in ignorance of the fact, a Tory disease has been inflicted on the whole country.

And what do they care? Their money is having a tax break in Panama - while they crash the economy into brexit mountain, giving them a clean slate for 40 years of Thatcherite betrayal, and an excuse for austerity forever. That's why an obviously crooked referendum 'must be respected' - why a marginal vote is an absolute mandate, and why May is wasting time on a deal no-one supports - while the clock runs out on Article 50.

And just think about all the bargain empty houses and bankrupt businesses they'll be able to snap up at rock bottom prices.

With regards to surplus and deficit with trade partners , why is a deficit "bad" and a surplus "good"? I ask, because if one is continually selling and not buying, then what is the point of selling? — Kippo

Trade deficits are not necessarily a bad thing - but there isn't a brexiteer alive who's heard of Riccardo, less yet understands the doctrine of comparative advantage. I urge you to try - just for laughs, but I assure you - you'd be wasting your time.


From On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation by David Ricardo.
London: John Murray, 1821.

To produce the wine in Portugal, might require only the
labour of 80 men for one year, and to produce the cloth in the
same country, might require the labour of 90 men for the same
time. It would therefore be advantageous for her to export wine
in exchange for cloth. This exchange might even take place,
notwithstanding that the commodity imported by Portugal could be
produced there with less labour than in England. Though she could
make the cloth with the labour of 90 men, she would import it
from a country where it required the labour of 100 men to produce
it, because it would be advantageous to her rather to employ her
capital in the production of wine, for which she would obtain
more cloth from England, than she could produce by diverting a
portion of her capital from the cultivation of vines to the
manufacture of cloth.

And their pets! Think of the puppies!
— karl stone

Karl, I'm concerned that you might have become a zombie. — frank

Are you? Did you bite me?

Sounds similar to when we had the join EU debate in this country.

The "Join" crowd painted a picture of the gates of paradise opening with EU membership and the "Don't join" crowd painted a picture of utter doom, perdition with the end of our independence. Back then the old politicians with warm ties to Russia dominated the "Don't join" crowd (so things have some continuity at least here).

Neither side was anywhere near being correct, but their lies live on. The realistic prediction that "things actually won't change so much for the ordinary person and from the viewpoint of the ordinary person" would have been far better, but who would campaign with that kind of slogan? — ssu

Let's not bother then, eh?

Roger Stone. Any relation to you? — Metaphysician Undercover

How would I know? Isn't all life related on some level?

Cameron told obvious lies by which he further sabotaged any residual credibility he brought to the Remain cause.
— karl stone

did nothing to counter the egregious lies and racist propaganda of the Leave campaign.
— karl stone

Karl, you're not making a great case here. Leave won by lying; but remain deliberately lost by lying. — unenlightened

The different constituencies of the vote are marked by educational attainment and socio-economic class. What was credible to one group was not credible to the other.

Leave told lies to the uneducated - provocative lies, like the EU is a foreign dictatorship, and responsible for mass immigration. Cameron did nothing to challenge those lies.

You and I know that's not true, because the EU is a democratic system, and the UK government failed to put accession controls in place from 2007 - as allowed under EU law, and then failed to remove jobless migrants - as allowed under EU law.

Inis doesn't know it's not true. He thinks he's giving Cameron the black eye he deserves for failing to meet his silly 'tens of thousands' immigration pledge - "or vote me out."

So Inis does.

David Cameron pretended to campaign for Remain - but was in fact a brexiteer. He lost on purpose.
— karl stone

You have zero evidence for your baseless fantastical claim.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/21/donald-tusk-warned-david-cameron-about-stupid-eu-referendum-bbc — Inis

Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who wrote a manifesto for Micheal Howard in 2005 - that related eu membership and immigration, calling for a referendum, and does so using leave campaign rhetoric word for word. There's the youtube video from 2009 of Cameron calling for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He called again for a referendum in the 2010 manifesto - at the same time he canclled an EU ID card scheme that would have given the UK that control over immigration, while making a non-credible promise to reduce immigration. In Europe, Cameron took the UK out of the centrist federalist alliance in the EU Parliament, and joined right wing nationalists. Once you start looking it just goes on and on - he was absolutely not a Remainer.

David Cameron alone decided we would have a referendum, against the expressed will of Parliament in 2011 - who voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, then made it a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. Cameron pledged to reduce immigration then failed spectacularly to do so. He tried to renegotiate a long list of complaints - published in the media, that couldn't be renegotiated because they would have required treaty change. Cameron appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain, while farming out the Leave campaign to an unaccountable right wing economic policy pressure group,. Cameron carried vast amounts of baggage with him into the referendum, baggage of his own creation - and made economic threats that did nothing to counter the egregious lies and racist propaganda of the Leave campaign. Cameron told obvious lies by which he further sabotaged any residual credibility he brought to the Remain cause. Cameron lost on purpose for Remain - in a referendum he alone decided would happen.

It's really rather obvious that Cameron was a false advocate for Remain. And the kicker is that the Leave campaign lied outrageously, incited racial hatred, stole facebook data to target people directly with propaganda - and still only won by a hair's breadth. Brexit is not the will of the people. It's a scam.

Just like 800,000 federal employees!
— karl stone

And their families. :sad: — frank

And their pets! Think of the puppies!

No, but seriously - President Evil doesn't give a damn about anyone but himself.

David Cameron campaigned for Remain. — Inis

David Cameron pretended to campaign for Remain - but was in fact a brexiteer. He lost on purpose.

Inis - you have failed to grasp the thrust of my thesis. You are talking to yourself. So thanks, but no thanks. We're done.

The people who voted Leave did so because they want to live in a functioning democracy.
— Inis

How do you know this? Fact is, you don't.
— karl stone

I know it because I know many people who voted Leave, and through the extensive research done by polling organisations. e.g.

Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.” — Inis

No mention of a 'functioning democracy.' And what's the sample size of this poll? It's says - "nearly half of leave voters' - but that's misleading. They didn't interview all leave voters, or half of them. Further, the questions asked now - about why people voted leave, very likely have little to do with why people voted at the time. They are responding to a list of choices - categories into which the survey must place them for the purposes of the report. Reality isn't like that.

There was no Remain campaign. Cameron was a brexiteer - who sabotaged his credibility and lost on purpose for Remain
— karl stone

That is the opposite of the truth. Cameron was a staunch Remainer, campaigned strongly for remain, and there are literally 100s of videos on youtube that captured the historical record. e.g. — Inis

Try this video from 2009, and tell me Cameron didn't want a referendum but was forced into it by UKIP!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-v9rGE4-o

British people don't want to be part of a burgeoning fascist state with its own army. — Inis

I assume you think that describes the EU - but it just doesn't. The EU is an elegantly democratic institution - with human rights, workers rights, consumer and environmental protection built into the founding treaties. Those values are the very antithesis of fascism. I can't imagine you even know what the word fascism means. You're making it more and more difficult to maintain the idea that you are not foolhardy, but were merely misled.

The people who voted Leave did so because they want to live in a functioning democracy. — Inis

How do you know this? Fact is, you don't.

Also, there was not a single argument to Remain, other than fear mongering, and that's not really an argument. — Inis

There was no Remain campaign. Cameron was a brexiteer - who sabotaged his credibility and lost on purpose for Remain.

When the UK can chart its own destiny, make its own trade deals, set its own taxes and regulations, escape the protectionist tariff barriers, it will once again become an economic powerhouse and a bulwark against the burgeoning totalitarianism engulfing Europe. — Inis

I know by the very fact you say that, you have no real idea what it means. You stand as proof that:

Those who voted Leave, the vast majority of them knew little or nothing about politics - and they were deceived. This isn't a matter of 'the foolhardy masses' - this is a matter of political corruption. — karl stone

"Anyone who thinks that you can have infinite growth in a finite environment is either a madman or an economist." -- David Attenborough.

Economists are concerned with growth. They want to know how much the economy is growing. If the economy slows down significantly, we call it a recession. Presumably the more the economy grows each year, the better. But the earth has finite resources, and can't grow indefinitely. So, what's going to happen to the economy when the earth runs out of resources? How is it possible to have more growth? Aren't we destined for a great depression that we can't recover from? Perhaps we need to reconsider our notions that a growth hungry economy is necessary, and accept the possibility of a steady state economy.

Do you believe in the crazy idea that we can have infinite growth on a finite planet? — Purple Pond

I believe we can achieve sustainability without significantly altering the economic model. The changes that are required are philosophical and political. Our mistake is about 400 years old, and concerns Galileo - and the presentation of his thesis 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems' (1633) to the Church. He was arrested and tried for heresy - because his findings contradicted Biblical orthodoxy. His work, which contained the first formal presentation of scientific method - was prohibited, and this had a chilling effect on all subsequent philosophy and scientific endeavor.

In effect, science was branded heretical - even as it was employed to power the industrial revolution from 1730. It proved a useful tool, but as an understanding of reality - science remained "grievously suspect of heresy." So religious and political ideology - particularly the Divine Rights of Kings the basis of the sovereign nation state in the Treaty of Westphalia (1650) was maintained, and technology was applied for the ideologically conceived good - as opposed to the scientifically conceived good.

Correcting that mistake is difficult, and requires of us a little sophistication. We need to protect ideologically ordered society, while at the same time - recognizing the significance of scientific truth, and applying technology accordingly. I believe that's possible - and furthermore, that in that context - capitalism is sustainable. Not merely because there are vast untapped resources on earth - and an infinite supply beyond, but because applied correctly, technology multiplies resources.

Foregoing the miracle of 'the invisible hand' at the heart of capitalism would be a foolish mistake. Foregoing the personal and political freedom for which capitalism provides would be criminal. It's not capitalism that's the problem - but rather the religious and political context within which it operates. Directed in the course of scientific truth - capitalism can easily achieve sustainability.

Fuck it, screw the foolhardy masses who voted to leave. Let's work towards reversing it in a way that'll minimise the fallout. — S

I cannot equate defrauding of the politically ignorant with the idea of 'the foolhardy masses.' I have a long term fascination with politics - but don't ask me anything about football. Is that foolhardy? No. You could easily deceive me into believing the ball was in - or offside, or whatever. It's just ignorance. And the Leave campaign played upon real grievances and concerns. The lie was that those real issues are the fault of the EU, and can be resolved by brexit. Those who voted Leave, the vast majority of them knew little or nothing about politics - and they were deceived. This isn't a matter of 'the foolhardy masses' - this is a matter of political corruption.

Well I found something of a connection that makes your conspiracy theory a bit more likely...

2012. https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/jcb-boss-sir-anthony-bamford-named-in-cash-for-cameron-scandal/8628352.article

2019. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/24/jcb-paid-boris-johnson-10000-three-days-before-speech?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR0I6CGObVxEOWvnFCOQN1q-Z8dUWrdiIYzutOkT0KOv3vjOUpwaZHoyff8

The same fellow supporting remain and leave champions is a bit suspicious... — unenlightened

It is rather odd how that chap seems intent on giving all his money to the Tory party. I rather suspect however, there's a PIIC covering up the whole rotten saga - so it will never come out in the British press.

He was collateral damage. — frank

Just like 800,000 federal employees!

Your talent for sycophancy should serve you well - or at least, keep you alive!
— karl stone

I'm just trying to make a living here. Maybe I do a little brown-nosing. What have your principles gained you? — frank

What did Micheal Cohen's sycophantic adoration of President Evil get him? He got his records seized, hauled over the coals by the FBI, and while facing a long time in jail for crimes he committed on President Evil's behalf - his family were threatened, and his father in law was ratted out on live TV.

Just heard President Evil RAT-OUT Cohen's father in law.

The father of the wife of a man who worked for him, and is going to jail because his records were seized.

New low.

Geraldo?
— karl stone

Yes. I'm on location in Russia. — frank

Your talent for sycophancy should serve you well - or at least, keep you alive!

If he was giving the SoU, and his head split open and teeth and tentacles spewed out - Fox News would still be like:

'Great job Mr President!' — karl stone

That's what the White House has been missing: more teeth and testicles. — frank

Geraldo?

President Evil
— karl stone

Who else read it in that voice? — S

If he was giving the SoU, and his head split open and teeth and tentacles spewed out - Fox News would still be like:

'Great job Mr President!'

President Evil — karl stone

Thank god we kept our machine guns. The zombies are upon us. — frank

Fake news! — karl stone

It's truthful hyperbole. — frank

If you're Russian!

President Evil — karl stone

Thank god we kept our machine guns. The zombies are upon us. — frank

Fake news!

President Evil

I think we're so much on the same page that I won't quibble.

brexit will disadvantage the very people fooled into voting for it the most - to protect a sovereignty that has been protected at their expense, creating the very discontent upon which the Leave campaign preyed,
— karl stone

This, conspiracy or mere tragedy, is the heart of the matter. And here is the connection with the US. Who knew til the shutdown that middle class Americans were just one pay check away from penury and food banks? And their 'take back control' hero was Trump!

Wouldn't you say though that the real problem is that the game of monopoly has reached its end, the winners have taken all, and the game is over. — unenlightened

I have a scientific conception of reality that recognizes religious, political and economic ideological concepts as conventions and traditions arising from our evolutionary history - and in those terms, this is but a moment after dawn for humankind. An awkward moment to be sure, but entirely negotiable. The very dynamics I criticize - I criticize as absolutes that exclude a scientific understanding of reality, but in acceptance of scientific truth they are cultural treasures, science can easily afford to protect and celebrate - while providing for a long and prosperous future.