The cheer up thread.

[Kirsten]

the #VoteConservative tag on Twitter is solid gold.

"Are you essentially a self interested angry chimp with no morals, who hates all minorities, the poor, the sick & children? #VoteConservative"

[Mr Mystery]

Some of them are brilliant

And for the interests of democracy, and of course my own political leanings, it's heartening to see the traditional press losing power to the almighty social media - some where erroneous claims can be quickly, and more importantly publicly refuted/challenged/blown out of the water.

[grimmas]

Well it made me chuckle. Especially after spending an unecessary part of my work time (which does equate to taxpayers' money) putting the U's back into words because it is inexplicably stuck on "mistake" English.

[Erik Setzer]

Can't wait to see people do a #VoteLiberal. Actually, this one already works:

"Are you essentially a self interested angry chimp with no morals, who hates all minorities, the poor, the sick & children? #VoteLiberal"

Liberal, conservative... burn all those immoral minority-hating, poor-hating, sick-hating, rich-loving *******s to the ground.

Vote libertarian. Get rid of Trump and Clinton both (at least the Dems didn't let their bigger joke candidate get the nomination like the Reps did). Freedom and equality for all.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

Aren't libertarians anti-benefits/welfare though? that would screw a lot of my disabled friends, and lot of disabled people in the uk have already killed themselves after having their benefits cut. How would Libertarians help disabled folk that aren't able to work?

[Mr Mystery]

Socialism is the future.

Seriously.

Enough of short term Thatcherism. Sooner or later they'll run out of stuff to flog to the lowest bidder.

Socialism helps future generations by laying the groundwork now. Yes to social mobility. Yes to the end of wealth privilege - funny how those who managed to get into the good schools because their parents are rich suddenly claim everyone should work off the sweat of their own brow, eh?

Strong NHS. Schools in the hands of those properly qualified in education. Social Security does need to be reviewed, but it has to remain a safety net, and not be an alternative to working for a living. Achieve this by ending the 'but I'm a wealth creator' lie that has helped to justify wage stagnation to pile a few more quid into the pockets of the already wealthy. Society needs to be rebalanced, and Socialism is the right mechanism, as the right time.

[Kirsten]

yup, socialism is really the only solution. forget all this 'us vs them, down with spongers' crap. we need to support each other. the super rich peddle the lie that socialism would prevent anybody from achieving success or wealth, and that we must all strive to succeed by climbing over the people below us

[Mr Mystery]

The biggest hurdle to social mobility isn't Socialism.

Social mobility is the whole point of socialism. Remove societal barriers to progression. Get rid of the Old Boys Networks and their ilk.

I mean, let's look at it. Right now, we're told to hate spongers. They're parasites, draining your wealth, a plague upon the country. Except.....look at sink estates in the UK. What actual chance does a kid born there have? They're told from birth they're scummy little parasites. That they are a burden. They're born into deprevation, and without a great deal of sheer, blind luck, there they'll stay. The best schools won't take them. Their parents can't afford to relocate to find an even half decent school. Right from the word 'go', they're bollocksed, and trapped in a cycle of poverty not of their own making.

To change that, we need to kick down the barriers which perpetuate the cycle. Proper funding for schools, including school meals (sadly, even in the modern day it may be only square meal the poor wee sod gets all day) and after school activities. Let senior teachers have input to what kids need to know, and why. Academia is not for everyone - so we need to stump up the money to provide a variety of schooling options - Gramar, Technical etc, so that wherever a kid shows a natural ability, there's a school to nurture and encourage that.

Free University. That's a no-brainer, even if it's just for defined courses (so you want a degree in Post-Modern Interprative Dance? You pay for it. Computer Science and Things actually useful and desirable? We'll get the tab for that, so long as you finish the course and pass it). With the current system, it's just too bloody expensive for many, but not the wealthy to whom £27,000 isn't a great deal of money.

The current system does not work. At all. It's bent. It's broken. It favours the few at the expense of the many, and that's not even achieved by meritocracy, but inheritance. ****. That.

I want a different Britain. As a member of the Screwed Generation, I demand better for my God Daughter.

[Erik Setzer]

Aren't libertarians anti-benefits/welfare though? that would screw a lot of my disabled friends, and lot of disabled people in the uk have already killed themselves after having their benefits cut. How would Libertarians help disabled folk that aren't able to work?

Promote voluntary giving, using the savings from not supporting programs (including unnecessary military actions).

Too many people just say that voluntary action wouldn't work, because no one can be trusted to do well for someone else, so we need to have political officials create rules to take by force money from some people to hand to others. There is NO situation that won't create negative feelings, because you are taking something someone earned, through threat of force. Why would they feel good about that? The only people who'd expect them to are stupid. And then you're trusting people to be in charge of taking from some and handing to others, and gosh, what do you know, they find ways to funnel the money to their friends, or their pet causes. End of the day, a lot of people who need help still aren't getting help, but politicians are getting the votes they want. And since people have already had money taken from them by force, they aren't as inclined to be kind and hand money over to those in need. After all, that money being taken from them is supposedly going to help those people.

In the end, socialism doesn't really work any better than voluntaryism, but people love the thought of saying they know better than others and forcing them to hand over money in order to give to someone else. Such people, in advocating such a system, are advocating giving a small group of people control over the lives of the many, and are supporting the same concepts behind "morality laws" such as anti-LGBT laws. You might argue that such laws are immoral (and they are), but then it's also immoral to take what someone has earned. If someone came into your house and took your possessions, no matter what they chose to do with it (i.e. distribute your clothes to homeless people), you would call that theft, yet it suddenly becomes magically moral when government does it? No. It doesn't. And then people act surprised that the folks they gave power to determine what is "moral" and "right" abuse it, as will always be the end result.

And if you want to argue with the "taken by force" point, then I'd recommend you skip taxes and see what happens. You'll find your liberty taken from you, and likely more possessions, and find your future in poor shape. It's that fear that gets people to hand something over, and it's no different from someone holding a gun to your head (or knee, if you want to argue that shooting you in the head would kill you whereas jail time wouldn't).

I used to donate more, but I had to stop because government demanded more because people said they have the right to take my money and give it to who they feel should have what I earned. It's very likely that now less of my money is actually going to help people.

- - - Updated - - -

The current system does not work. At all. It's bent. It's broken. It favours the few at the expense of the many, and that's not even achieved by meritocracy, but inheritance. ****. That.

So the idea is to double down on the current system? Or to claim the failures are from you not being able to take more from people?

Please, by all means, try to take more money from people. Other nations will welcome them with open arms. Then who do you take the money from to pay for what you think it should go to?

Do you accept getting charged 5% more, then 10%, then 15% more, and so on, as the charges pile up, knowing that failure to pay will result in loss of your freedom and internment in a facility? Is that really a "helping" society?

Make no mistake, you will have to pay more and more. The folks with money will take it elsewhere, unless you opt to use military force to prevent them leaving the nation, as a reverse-Trump. You won't be able to keep charging them. It will have to come from the "common people." When it does, there won't be enough money to pass around. There never is.

It's not a feasible system. It sounds good like fairy tales always do. It cannot work. The only way to try to make it "work" is to try to use force to do so, creating a police state by necessity. And, again, you're then agreeing to hand the rights to determine morality to a few people in charge, who, because you determined they must have the power to use force against the people for the "benefit" of others (who will not want to get rich, because they'd then have most of their earnings taken as well and/or their freedoms stripped), now have the power to turn that same force against you should they determine that's "in the best interests of the people." And conveniently, this "ideal" society will be one where the civilians have nothing to defend themselves. So when the government comes to collect - or decides that they feel the minorities are a problem - you won't be able to stop it.

That's what you want. For your sake, I hope you never get it. You want a system more controlling of individuals and more restricting than even what Trump would want. You want a more desolate future - believing it's "bright" - than what that madman promises. But that's how it goes. People follow the pretty promises right into the poor farm.

[grimmas]

Well you lot are cheery aren't you?