| Some of us said 10:55 - Oct 11 with 4198 views | chicoazul |
That nobody should agitate for a new Tory government as it would inevitably be much much worse than “Boris” and his boosterism.
Remember?
Big and painful cuts needed to fix budget, says IFS https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63203095 |  |
| |  |
| Some of us said on 13:21 - Oct 11 with 999 views | Darth_Koont |
| Some of us said on 11:20 - Oct 11 by MattinLondon |
Boris was unfit for high office - in fact he’s not suited for any office - he brought it into disrepute and he had to go. The fact that the present lot of Tories aren’t much better has nothing to do with that. The ‘I told you do’ line of thought is totally ludicrous. |
Agreed. But that raises the question: How did Boris get in when we knew exactly who he was?
People didn’t care is the simple answer. Not our governing party nor our political media – and as a result way too many of the population.
If we don’t want clowns, we shouldn’t be supporting the circus. And yet we still do. |  |
| |
| Some of us said on 13:23 - Oct 11 with 991 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Some of us said on 11:19 - Oct 11 by StokieBlue |
The implication of your post is that unacceptable behaviour should be tolerated because something worse might come along.
That's a horrible way to think and and horrible way to run a country.
The people calling for Boris to go aren't at fault here, the blame is entirely on the Tories and their membership.
If you do want to point at someone perhaps direct your ire towards the people who thought a change of PM with a radically different set of policies without an election was just fine and dandy.
SB |
That's how I read it too. Peak BCWYWF.
There's also the suggestion that only Chico could see that the other PM candidates were as mad as a bunch of frogs, which is pretty funny really. Of course Truss was going to be awful. Of course there wasn't anyone who would make a difference. That's all by the by though. |  |
| |
| Some of us said on 13:34 - Oct 11 with 953 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Some of us said on 12:31 - Oct 11 by chicoazul |
I don’t understand why people think things will be different or better. These people never learn anything from history. It’s very frustrating but also quite funny. |
So by that logic we should've stuck with Cook and not tried McKenna? |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Some of us said on 13:46 - Oct 11 with 938 views | BlueBadger |
| Some of us said on 11:21 - Oct 11 by XYZ |
Trolls gonna troll. |
He'll be back to crying about pile-ons and 'unpopular opinions in an hour or two now. |  |
| |
| Some of us said on 13:58 - Oct 11 with 927 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Some of us said on 13:34 - Oct 11 by The_Flashing_Smile |
So by that logic we should've stuck with Cook and not tried McKenna? |
More than that. Should have stuck with Cook even if he'd covered up a sexual abuse scandal of one of his staff members, broken the law and overseen a culture of law breaking throughout his backroom staff. | |
| |
| Some of us said on 14:08 - Oct 11 with 915 views | SenatorBlue |
| Some of us said on 12:45 - Oct 11 by homer_123 |
But you don't stick with Hurst, do you? |
But hopefully someone with enough financial clout, spies a vastly under performing nation with potential to once again be a top 5 economy, and sweeps in with a team of experts, with a crystal clear view of what is needed, first doing a hatched on existing MP’s, before installing a bright up and coming politician from the street with an encyclopaedic knowledge of politics and fiscal policy, who can lift cabinet to levels never seen before, ultimately leading to record exports of black out business suits? [Post edited 11 Oct 2022 14:10]
|  | | |
| Some of us said on 14:10 - Oct 11 with 906 views | chicoazul |
| Some of us said on 13:23 - Oct 11 by Swansea_Blue |
That's how I read it too. Peak BCWYWF.
There's also the suggestion that only Chico could see that the other PM candidates were as mad as a bunch of frogs, which is pretty funny really. Of course Truss was going to be awful. Of course there wasn't anyone who would make a difference. That's all by the by though. |
So why get rid of “Boris” then? Why agitate constantly on here about how awful he is? When in hindsight he is much more palatable, certainly economically which is what TWTD seems mainly concerned about, than what we have now. This is what I can’t understand. | |
| |
| Some of us said on 14:12 - Oct 11 with 897 views | chicoazul |
| Some of us said on 11:12 - Oct 11 by Darth_Koont |
Indeed. The solution to Boris wasn’t “Anyone but Boris” in the same way that the solution to the Tories isn’t “Anyone but the Tories”.
A serious country with serious politicians and media would talk about what the actual solutions would or should be for society and the economy. Not the soap opera of which empty, policyless “personality” can paint themselves popular for the next fleeting moment. |
Couldn’t agree more.
I think you and I agree on the diagnosis but disagree about the cure which is how politics should be, instead of this broad equivalence between parties. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Some of us said on 14:18 - Oct 11 with 889 views | HARRY10 |
What was obvious in July was that anyone with an ounce of sanity among the Tory MPs had fled, taken to the hills. Leaving only the swivel eyed to put themselves forward ........Braverman, Badenoch, Karsi
The bloater had farked things up so badly that who ever took control would face a mountain to climb. However, the dimwitted Truss never spoke of implementing the first stage of brexit, as far as the UK was concerned. Up till September 22 it had all been about the UK trying to adjust to the rules which being a third country gave.
And one of the other rarely mentioned problems, in contrast to the endless child like bleats about PR, is that the country's leader was allowed to be selected by those not entitled to vote in a General Election ie non UK nationals and those under 18. Ironic given how the Tories are trying to bring in voter ID. |  | | |
| Some of us said on 14:19 - Oct 11 with 891 views | WeWereZombies |
| Some of us said on 14:10 - Oct 11 by chicoazul |
So why get rid of “Boris” then? Why agitate constantly on here about how awful he is? When in hindsight he is much more palatable, certainly economically which is what TWTD seems mainly concerned about, than what we have now. This is what I can’t understand. |
I hate to be the one to break this to you but it is possible that Johnson had to go because his own party were revolting...err, against him, and not because he logged on to the TWTD forum one day in July expecting hugs and warmth but only saw a slew of posts deriding him. |  |
| |
| Some of us said on 14:24 - Oct 11 with 876 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Some of us said on 14:10 - Oct 11 by chicoazul |
So why get rid of “Boris” then? Why agitate constantly on here about how awful he is? When in hindsight he is much more palatable, certainly economically which is what TWTD seems mainly concerned about, than what we have now. This is what I can’t understand. |
Because you're thick. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Some of us said on 14:26 - Oct 11 with 873 views | chicoazul |
| Some of us said on 14:19 - Oct 11 by WeWereZombies |
I hate to be the one to break this to you but it is possible that Johnson had to go because his own party were revolting...err, against him, and not because he logged on to the TWTD forum one day in July expecting hugs and warmth but only saw a slew of posts deriding him. |
Well no clearly not. If you’re saying all the arguments we all have on here all the time are completely worthless then I do agree. That doesn’t make them uninteresting which is a distinction many on TWTD have never understood. | |
| |
| Some of us said on 14:27 - Oct 11 with 871 views | StokieBlue |
| Some of us said on 14:10 - Oct 11 by chicoazul |
So why get rid of “Boris” then? Why agitate constantly on here about how awful he is? When in hindsight he is much more palatable, certainly economically which is what TWTD seems mainly concerned about, than what we have now. This is what I can’t understand. |
"Don’t you ever get tired of proving how thick you are? Don’t get me wrong I don’t want you to stop as I enjoy it so much."
Chico - last week.
Perfect.
SB |  | | |
| Some of us said on 14:30 - Oct 11 with 857 views | chicoazul |
| Some of us said on 13:21 - Oct 11 by Darth_Koont |
Agreed. But that raises the question: How did Boris get in when we knew exactly who he was?
People didn’t care is the simple answer. Not our governing party nor our political media – and as a result way too many of the population.
If we don’t want clowns, we shouldn’t be supporting the circus. And yet we still do. |
People shouted at me when I pointed out this simple fact. | |
| |
| Some of us said on 14:39 - Oct 11 with 828 views | HARRY10 |
| Some of us said on 14:19 - Oct 11 by WeWereZombies |
I hate to be the one to break this to you but it is possible that Johnson had to go because his own party were revolting...err, against him, and not because he logged on to the TWTD forum one day in July expecting hugs and warmth but only saw a slew of posts deriding him. |
That so many were saved during the pandemic was in spite of the garrulous gutbuckets indifference.
As with much else it is only when the dust has settled can we begin to see the truth."
"Even within Number 10, there was a real indifference about what was going on with vaccines. It wasn’t a high priority.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1680939/covid-vaccines-downing-street-dam
It can only ever be guessed as to how many deaths were deliberately due to the bloaters incompetence, and indifference. What can be known at some point is what that incompetence and indifference amounted to.
There will be a public enquiry, even if it takes for a change of government | | | |
| Some of us said on 14:48 - Oct 11 with 816 views | backwaywhen |
| Some of us said on 10:59 - Oct 11 by CaptainAhab |
Is this some sort of weird I told you so? Boris was so bad, but we should have stuck with him because the alternative Tory government would be even worse. Ok then. |
I for one was right behind Boris , the circumstances of his term were unprecedented and thought he done well , nobody else would have done any better in those circumstances .
Should have let him try and pull it round , but he was hounded out by those who thought they knew better ……. Major F#ck up by his so called colleagues ! | | | |
| Some of us said on 15:01 - Oct 11 with 779 views | BlueBadger |
| Some of us said on 14:10 - Oct 11 by chicoazul |
So why get rid of “Boris” then? Why agitate constantly on here about how awful he is? When in hindsight he is much more palatable, certainly economically which is what TWTD seems mainly concerned about, than what we have now. This is what I can’t understand. |
Literally the only person supporting you here is one of the TB tribute acts who cried like Big Sam after a playoff semi when the fat incompetent and corrupt bigot with a criminal conviction got the push. [Post edited 11 Oct 2022 15:02]
| |
| |
| Some of us said on 15:05 - Oct 11 with 767 views | BlueBadger |
| Some of us said on 14:39 - Oct 11 by HARRY10 |
That so many were saved during the pandemic was in spite of the garrulous gutbuckets indifference.
As with much else it is only when the dust has settled can we begin to see the truth."
"Even within Number 10, there was a real indifference about what was going on with vaccines. It wasn’t a high priority.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1680939/covid-vaccines-downing-street-dam
It can only ever be guessed as to how many deaths were deliberately due to the bloaters incompetence, and indifference. What can be known at some point is what that incompetence and indifference amounted to.
There will be a public enquiry, even if it takes for a change of government |
It started a week ago.
They're already trying to sideline bereaved families.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/04/covid-19-bereaved-told-they-will-b | |
| |
| Some of us said on 15:11 - Oct 11 with 747 views | HARRY10 |
thanks
"a sprawling inquiry expected to run for several years"
"Hallett is planning only a “listening exercise” to capture a cross-section of views among the hundreds of thousands of bereaved people in the UK. They want their evidence to be heard directly."
" Evidence hearings will not start until next year. "
The latter was my previous understanding | | | |
| Some of us said on 15:21 - Oct 11 with 743 views | BlueBadger |
| Some of us said on 14:48 - Oct 11 by backwaywhen |
I for one was right behind Boris , the circumstances of his term were unprecedented and thought he done well , nobody else would have done any better in those circumstances .
Should have let him try and pull it round , but he was hounded out by those who thought they knew better ……. Major F#ck up by his so called colleagues ! |
'Nobody else could have done better in those circumstances'
Apart from nearly other Western(and a fair few non-Western) nation in the world.
What is it you liked best about Boris? The homophobia? The racism? The open corruption? The Incompetence? The criminality? The dishonesty? The acceptance of Russian money? [Post edited 11 Oct 2022 15:22]
| |
| |
| Some of us said on 15:24 - Oct 11 with 727 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
If only we'd had a chance to vote in a government with a fundamentally different set of values before Johnson or Truss and people hadn't swallowed the money tree line! |  |
| |
| Some of us said on 15:33 - Oct 11 with 709 views | jeera |
| Some of us said on 14:10 - Oct 11 by chicoazul |
So why get rid of “Boris” then? Why agitate constantly on here about how awful he is? When in hindsight he is much more palatable, certainly economically which is what TWTD seems mainly concerned about, than what we have now. This is what I can’t understand. |
"Why agitate constantly on here about how awful he is?"
Because he was.
A corrupt, lying self-serving pig of a man.
That we now have one of his own cronies is his doing and his party's doing.
The one entity that isn't [directly] to blame for Truss is the electorate, given they didn't vote for her. |  |
| |
| Some of us said on 15:40 - Oct 11 with 689 views | WeWereZombies |
| Some of us said on 14:48 - Oct 11 by backwaywhen |
I for one was right behind Boris , the circumstances of his term were unprecedented and thought he done well , nobody else would have done any better in those circumstances .
Should have let him try and pull it round , but he was hounded out by those who thought they knew better ……. Major F#ck up by his so called colleagues ! |
OK, now we have outed bungaytractor I think we need to work out which poster you really are...and whether you also log on as DaveU... | |
| |
| Some of us said on 15:47 - Oct 11 with 671 views | BlueBadger |
| Some of us said on 15:40 - Oct 11 by WeWereZombies |
OK, now we have outed bungaytractor I think we need to work out which poster you really are...and whether you also log on as DaveU... |
Mad Harry's 'real' account, innit. | |
| |
| Some of us said on 15:49 - Oct 11 with 655 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Some of us said on 14:48 - Oct 11 by backwaywhen |
I for one was right behind Boris , the circumstances of his term were unprecedented and thought he done well , nobody else would have done any better in those circumstances .
Should have let him try and pull it round , but he was hounded out by those who thought they knew better ……. Major F#ck up by his so called colleagues ! |
Hello Boris  | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
