Essential Trump/Alt-Right Ridicule Thread

[Happy Larry]

You started spouting this 'genuinely in need' trope

Correct. Because I feel they should get more help from the government, but they won't get it as long as people are using up our welfare budget, both legally and illegally, when they could quite easily get by without government aid.

If you really don't understand the term "genuinely in need" then you need far more help with English than I have the time to give you.

 

[NoXion]

Correct. Because I feel they should get more help from the government, but they won't get it as long as people are using up our welfare budget, both legally and illegally, when they could quite easily get by without government aid.

If you really don't understand the term "genuinely in need" then you need far more help with English than I have the time to give you.

Billions in benefits go unclaimed, so this notion you're propagating that people are missing out due to a bunch of freeloaders choking up the system is complete and utter bollocks.

 

[Happy Larry]

so this notion you're propagating that people are missing out due to a bunch of freeloaders choking up the system is complete and utter bollocks.

Not at all. You seem totally ignorant regarding the conclusion to be drawn from the article. As the article rightly says :

"Eligible people don’t always claim as much as they should"

The reason being is that there are millions of people in the UK who think like like myself and who thankfully don't use up government funds by claiming benefits when they can get by without them, thus leaving more for those who are desperate for aid.

Nothing pisses me off more than those selfish twats who don't really need help from the government but put in claims "because I'm entitled to it as I've paid in for years".

 

[NoXion]

Not at all. You seem totally ignorant regarding the conclusion to be drawn from the article. As the article rightly says :

"Eligible people don’t always claim as much as they should"

The reason being is that there are millions of people in the UK who think like like myself and who thankfully don't use up government funds by claiming benefits when they can get by without them, thus leaving more for those who are desperate for aid.

Nothing pisses me off more than those selfish twats who don't really need help from the government but put in claims "because I'm entitled to it as I've paid in for years".

It doesn't matter whatever reason people say they make a claim for. It's not their call to make as to whether they are eligible, it's the DWP that does that. They are the ones who decide whether one receives benefit or not, not claimants. So you getting angry at people for claiming benefits is just you being the piece of shit that you are.

People are not failing to make a claim because they rugged individualist wankers like yourself. They're failing to claim their entitlement because the DWP aren't a helpful bunch at the best of the times, and because of various "reforms" made to the benefits system over the years to remould it into being as unfriendly and discouraging as they think they can get away with.

 

[krtek a houby]

Eureka! You've got it. So hopefully you now realise that your chip on the shoulder concerning the rich is completely unnecessary.

But I doubt it.



Do you really live in the UK? The "majority of people" here are not poverty stricken, you utter twit. Stop playing the victim. There are billions of people around the world who would just love to come to the UK and enjoy the standard of living that we enjoy. If you put as much effort into improving your lot in life instead of whining about it, you would be far better off.

Fake news

 

[krtek a houby]

you need far more help with English than I have the time to give you.

Why do you keep bringing people up on their command of English?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Eureka! You've got it. So hopefully you now realise that your chip on the shoulder concerning the rich is completely unnecessary.

But I doubt it.



Do you really live in the UK? The "majority of people" here are not poverty stricken, you utter twit. Stop playing the victim. There are billions of people around the world who would just love to come to the UK and enjoy the standard of living that we enjoy. If you put as much effort into improving your lot in life instead of whining about it, you would be far better off.

1. Just because 'success isn't down to money' doesn't mean that wealth is unproblematic.

2. Poverty is relative both in terms of geography and history; this shouldn't be news.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[mojo pixy]

Nothing pisses me off more than those selfish twats who don't really need help from the government but put in claims "because I'm entitled to it as I've paid in for years".

Like pensioners, eh? Many if not most could easily go on working till they die but instead they make themselves a burden on the rest of us with their sense of entitlement.

You have no idea what you're arguing, do you?

 

[Corax]

Are you another one of those poor souls who is so bitter and twisted because the US dollar and sharemarkets are so high, despite your fear mongering regarding the consequences of Trump being elected?

I'll just leave this here, shall I?

Irritatingly, they've not bothered to balel the x axis.

It's the DOW. For the record; it's their stock market record Larry.

Lol! Trump was not voted in as president of the most powerful country in the world because he is a social pariah, sunshine.

By the popular vote, he wasn't actually voted in at all in fact

politically correct

I understand what it's *come to mean*...


...but now I stop to consider it, all this really means is 'takes care not to offend people.'

I'm alright with that, personally. I'm alright with that.

 

[Corax]

Happy Larry

When you, graphs that show a much steeper rise under Trumpa than Obama by the way...

... you'd be wise to take note of the y-axis.

And this concludes the first Lesson on why the data-illiterate shouldn't be allowed to look at graphs.

 

[Corax]

And the y-axis too, for that matter...

 

[CRI]

 

[Corax]

Happy Larry

To any other graphs or data you use in an attempt at backing up your grossly ignorant and/or willfully disingenuous assertion, I could show you plenty of illustrations as to why it's unrequited bollocks. But instead I'll say either:

a) Go look up the figures yourself, I'm not your fucking researcher
or
b) Start a separate thread

Take your pick.

 

[CRI]

 

[Nylock]

Correct. Because I feel they should get more help from the government, but they won't get it as long as people are using up our welfare budget, both legally and illegally, when they could quite easily get by without government aid.

Oh Larry... You slippery fucker... You know full-well that you are being asked to provide your demarcation line of where legal claimants who use up the budget lie. Illegal claimants in this context is a non-issue as (a) the instance of benefit fraud is so small as to be a virtual irrelevancy and (b) no one advocates people illegally claiming and deliberately defrauding the benefit system; the latter is a figment of the fruitcake right's fevered imaginings.

So, in the interests of having some actual candour from you on this issue: who are the 'deserving' and who are the 'undeserving'? Are in-work benefits using up monies that could be more productively channeled to those 'most in need'? What is the income threshold above which people are being 'greedy' despite being able to 'get by'? Should people on benefits be able to purchase things like TV's and white goods on long-term HP? Or should benefits be subsistence-only payments that cover food, heating, lighting and rent and if anything goes wrong with an appliance the claimant should apply for a crisis loan that takes several weeks to clear and 'suck it up' in the meantime?

This time try and provide a direct answer instead of pathetically calling into question people's grasp of English; all you achieve with that line of attack is making yourself look an even bigger tool than you already are.

If you really don't understand the term "genuinely in need" then you need far more help with English than I have the time to give you.

I understand it full-well, I am waiting for you to elucidate on what you think the term means. Again, you know this full-well you evasive tool.

 

[CRI]

 

[Happy Larry]

I understand it full-well, I am waiting for you to elucidate on what you think the term means.

I have already told you, grasshopper. The meaning I attach to the words are exactly in line with that applied by either the Oxford or Cambridge dictionary. Look it up and learn. It's not that hard.

 

[Happy Larry]

who are the 'deserving' and who are the 'undeserving'?

Again, I have already told you. You really need to concentrate.

The deserving are those who cannot get by without government aid.

The undeserving are those who can, but choose to apply for government aid anyway.

 

[Libertad]

I have already told you, grasshopper. The meaning I attach to the words are exactly in line with that applied by either the Oxford or Cambridge dictionary. Look it up and learn.

Said Humpty Dumpty.

 

[mojo pixy]

Cunty Numpty

 

[existentialist]

Again, I have already told you. You really need to concentrate.

The deserving are those who cannot get by without government aid.

The undeserving are those who can, but choose to apply for government aid anyway.

Clever. Snide insinuations about the intellectual ability of your interlocutors is always worth a few pages .

As is a handwaving fact-free assertion of something complex, presented as a simple binary choice. You're on fire this morning - must have been a good night last night!

 

[CRI]

White People Are Upset That Amazon’s Alexa Believes Black Lives Matter

 

[CRI]

 

[CRI]

 

[NoXion]

Again, I have already told you. You really need to concentrate.

The deserving are those who cannot get by without government aid.

The undeserving are those who can, but choose to apply for government aid anyway.

The DWP decides who is "deserving" and who isn't. If people apply for benefits and the DWP accepts their application, then they deserve those benefits by definition.

 

[Nylock]

I have already told you, grasshopper. The meaning I attach to the words are exactly in line with that applied by either the Oxford or Cambridge dictionary. Look it up and learn. It's not that hard.

You don't get away with it that easily. If you were attributing the same meaning as the Oxford/Cambridge dictionaries then you wouldn't be spouting the shite you do about those you feel are deserving/undeserving.

Again, I have already told you. You really need to concentrate.

The deserving are those who cannot get by without government aid.

The undeserving are those who can, but choose to apply for government aid anyway.

If they fall under the threshold that triggers their entitlement to benefits then they are, by definition, 'deserving'. So, again, what do you deem to be the fabled threshold for deserving/undeserving? Let's make it easy for you:

* State an earning threshold for in-work benefits and state whether the benefits should track income (the more you fall under the threshold the greater your entitlement) or whether it should be just a fixed amount regardless.
* Then move on to out of work benefits and state a cumulative figure for those (subsistence payments, housing benefits, council tax relief) and whether or not non-subsistence entitlements (HB/CTR) should vary depending on region and 'market rent'/council tax band values).
* Finally, let's hear your thoughts on disability benefits (that should be 'entertaining')...

Whilst it's amusing in its own sad way to keep dancing around on this with you, at some point you are actually going to have to commit and give your definitive 'line in the sand' which divides the deserving/undeserving -otherwise you just come across as a snide with nothing of substance to say about the subject beyond the nebulous waffle and feeble attempts at belittlement that you have thus far engaged in.

Best of luck.

 

[spring-peeper]

Fundraising emails are a common sight this time of the year, but this latest, landing even in inboxes of Jewish recipients, stands out as a bit unusual.

“Wish the First Family a Merry Christmas,” reads the message, pasted over a photo of Donald and Melania Trump in front of what seems to be the national Christmas tree on the Ellipse south of the White House.

For those interested in signing the Trumps’ greeting card, a quick click leads to the next page, where, under the title reading “We’re saying Merry Christmas again!” they’ll be offered a choice of donations ranging from $35 to $2700, all directed at the Trump Make America Great Committee, a joint fundraising group of the Trump campaign and the RNC.

To Make America Great Again, You Have To Make Christmas Merry Again

 

[CRI]

To Make America Great Again, You Have To Make Christmas Merry Again

 

[CRI]

 

[Happy Larry]

By the popular vote, he wasn't actually voted in at all in fact

US electoral candidates ignore the popular vote and target their efforts on what they need to do to win the presidential race according to the rules. This usually includes concentrating their efforts on key states which may go either way. Thus their direct efforts are targeted at a relatively small number of people.

The DWP decides who is "deserving" and who isn't. If people apply for benefits and the DWP accepts their application, then they deserve those benefits by definition.

People have a far more accurate picture than the DWP of whether they are genuinely in need or not. Their opinion of whether they are "deserving" or not may be totally different than the DWP. For example, my partner and I could qualify for a number of benefits if in need, but would never apply for them as we would always support each other, rather than run to the government for aid. I have also supported my kids and my parents even though, at times, they could also have claimed benefits. It's just the right thing to do, in my opinion. If more people took this view, there would surely be more funds available for old age pensioners and others genuinely in need.