Profile overview for Ramblinman.
Submission statistics

This user has mostly submitted to the following subverses (showing top 5):

1 submissions to AskVoat

This user has so far shared a total of 0 links, started a total of 1 discussions and submitted a total of 26 comments.

Voting habits

Submissions: This user has upvoted 30 and downvoted 0 submissions.

Comments: This user has upvoted 323 and downvoted 0 comments.

Submission ratings

5 highest rated submissions:

Brexit: will it actually happen?, submitted: 6/20/2016 6:28:13 AM, 10 points (+10|-0)

5 lowest rated submissions:

Brexit: will it actually happen?, submitted: 6/20/2016 6:28:13 AM, 10 points (+10|-0)

Comment ratings

3 highest rated comments:

Brits of voat, do you give two fucks about the royal family? why or why not? submitted by ToFat2Fish to AskVoat

Ramblinman 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago

I personally don't care too much for a family that some point in history got everyone else to believe they should be running the country. They're kind of interesting and everything but do we really need them that much.

Some Brtish people say that they're great for tourism but France does well enough without them as does Italy and many other countries. The Royal family do however own a ton of land and property which generates them a lot of money. They don't get to keep that money as it all goes to the state and they're given a royal allowance. This allowance is significantly less than the royals would be earning otherwise so it is debatable whether it's cheaper just to keep them.

This being said I've also heard the royals cost us each 50p a year. Maybe that's just how much has their allowance comes to per person or something.

When the Queen dies a lot of people feel there should at least be a debate about becoming a Republic. But it'll be a cold day in hell before that happens with the Queen alive. Prince Charles however is a different matter altogether. If only we could skip him and go straight to Prince William everyone thinks he's great myself included.

Tl:dr the Royal family get the best benefits in the country and somehow are still quite popular except Prince Charles.

Two Irish gays buy a son in Canada and now want an Irish passport for their purchase but they were shocked to discover that he can't have one. submitted by EmmetMcTaggart to news

Ramblinman 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago

Gaelic being a language spoken by the Celts and Irish.

Corporate reddit not really my cup of tea. Bye bye sanitized, hello brave new world! submitted by antricfer89 to introductions

Ramblinman 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago

At what point did it become invite only. I only joined about a week ago. It must be relatively recently.

3 lowest rated comments:

The stark reality of socialist Venezuela: children are literally dying of hunger submitted by wgtt911 to news

Ramblinman 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago

I'd be interested to know if the country he was writing about was a capitalist country whether that fact would have made it into the title. Food shortages happen in lots of different types of economies. I'm pretty sure that in some poor country with starving people in if you gave them all $5000 each they'd quickly be getting food to themselves and yet a lack of money for people to buy food is rarely seen as a failure of a capitalist system just as bad governance.

Most causes of starvation seem to be man-made in some form or another anyway regardless of socialism or capitalism.

In the west we have so much food some people literally eat themselves to death. There really shouldn't be much call for this sort of thing to happen.

The stark reality of socialist Venezuela: children are literally dying of hunger submitted by wgtt911 to news

Ramblinman 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago

Well for a start the Bengali famine in 1943. I'm pretty sure neither India or Great Britain at the time where particularly socialist they where producing enough food for there not to be a famine in the area. It was just all shipped off elsewhere:

Or how about the Irish potato famine? Again Great Britain (at the time):

As bob3333 points out the United States has a fair amount of hungry children (and I presume adults!) and food banks are definitely becoming more prevalent. The only reason these people are hungry is that they don't have enough money. Laissez-faire economic governance with strong property rights don't keep their stomachs full.

JOYS OF SOCIALISM: Venezuelan General Orders Sniper Fire on Starving Protesters submitted by Joker68 to news

Ramblinman 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago

I always wonder about this. In the US where there is this whole thing about having guns to overthrow the state if it's citizens thought it was getting out of hand. Could you actually see them doing it? There are other ways to go about it.

Additionally there have been plenty of civilian uprisings that have overthrown governments without really using guns. Quite a few Eastern European countries in the 90's, Arab spring etc.

To me the whole pro-gun movement (we need guns to be free idea) reeks of the propaganda of companies and lobbyists who want to sell guns.