Soy Adrián

Find me a meaningful example of a far left publication inciting hatred with the same effects that the right wing press did in the final days of the referendum campaign and you may have a point. Otherwise it's irrelevant, and a way to let some increasingly extremist newspapers off the hook.

Last time I checked there wasn't a far left newspaper with a massive circulation using that kind of language, and an individual with far left views hadn't recently gunned down an MP in the street.

Go on.

I mean... it became a bit niche after 1945.

You frequently make bizarre contortions to try and turn the criticism back around to his opponents - that's defending him. As for the latter point, I literally just explained why. In the post you quoted.

What do you think? Regardless of anyone's opinion on the President's agenda - it's only reasonable to assume that they should be putting the work in. I look forward to the day when you don't try and defend him.

A clueless clock is right twice a day. I'm still not sure Sanders would have won, but Biden and Warren probably would have. Regardless, Trump is less popular than any other President in history at this stage in his first term - the idea that there's only one person who could beat him next time is laughable. EDIT: The article you shared is from February!

That's a seriously impressive way of spinning it.

Find me those polls and I might believe you're not just making shit up because you haven't heard of anyone apart from Sanders.

Justine Greening is generally tolerable, ironically.

Well that's abhorrent.

The actual referendum turned out to be about a million and one things, as any half decent analysis of the results or any conversation with a diverse group of Leave voters would tell you.

It was still a minority position, that they adopted to increase their support among UKIP voters. It wasn't like, for instance, Theresa May deciding that she would match Corbyn's position on rail renationalisation - in that instance, where polls rate public support very highly and the other main party is already supporting it, that would be an example of (arguably) trying to acknowledge the "will of the people". See the difference?

It was an intervention to prevent what would have been a severe shock to the economy, which would have had effects lasting rather longer than 18 months. That's a tactical reason for the Tories to promise to hold on - it's not a convincing argument as to why there should be one.

Famously, fascist regimes are able to apply these three things in moderation very successfully.

North Korea have been doing this for years and know full well that they'd be pulverised as soon as a nuclear conflict broke out. Trump is unique to American presidents in that he doesn't seem to understand that nuclear war isn't worth contemplating.

How is that in any way relevant?

You're asking whether they are concerned, when we've been trying to point out that they should be. It tends to be the role of journalism to find bad things that have happened so that people can care about them - you can't expect everyone to be an expert.

Just in case - what aspects of the social conservatism?

Maybe not, but they certainly should be.

Probably, it's completely scandalous.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but then again he did back an actual fascist for President so maybe. Either way, I'm confident that I wouldn't want anyone, MP or not, to be PM if they had as you put it fascist tendencies. It seems you can't say the same.

It's going to be fun watching that be tested over the next few years. Not that I got round to voting, but thankfully you don't really represent the forum as a whole.

You may be shocked to know I don't want Jacob Rees-Mogg to be PM.

"See, the economy's doing really well! Brexit will be fine!" Several key statistics show the economy is slowing down and looking in rather bad shape "It's too soon to draw any conclusions until after we leave"