A Political Thread

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Missed the point

 

[ncurd]

I may have not been clear enough, you'll surprised to find out how many pro-Corbyn people don't realise he's anti-EU and when you explain it to them it's like they've been hidden in a cave for years.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I may have not been clear enough, you'll surprised to find out how many pro-Corbyn people don't realise he's anti-EU and when you explain it to them it's like they've been hidden in a cave for years.

Yeh I got that the second time of reading hence why I edited my post to say I missed the point.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

6 more Tories set to join IG, according to Ken Clarke

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

i'm actually gonna get behind bernie this time... i didn't think he had a chance last time but at this point i care more about policies than politics

i think AOC should be the future of the left but the democratic establishment isn't a big fan of her

 

[Bada-Bing!]

 

[General Melchett]

Corbyn sold himself as pro-young people, pro ethnic minority at the last GE and many just voted for him out of resentment or protest at the Tories. Voters should really do their homework about candidates and not get caught up in euphoria.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

identity politics will be the thing that potentially defeats the democrats in 2020 not the republicans.
Especially from within itself.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

identity politics will be the thing that potentially defeats the democrats in 2020 not the republicans.
Especially from within itself.

we already have people saying bernie isn't good enough for the left because he isn't perfect on race/gender issues

most democrats would rather run a pseudo-republican (hillary) than a leftist that they disagree with on one or two things

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

They have a lower age limit on candidates; she wouldn't be eligible.

But seemingly not an upper limit. Sanders is 77. He'd be starting at the same age that Reagan finished. An octogenarian president? Surely not. It's the kind of job where it helps to be more or less on the ball (incumbent excluded).

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Mind if i highjack the thread for a quick question? Just want to make myself an idea of would people react to something i just saw in places i don't reside/visit.

Context: subway union rep invited to a talk show. He is one of several people there. Around 10-12 total including the host, journalists, politicians, union reps and other invitees.

He is very visceral and loud so he kind of highjacks the conversation and starts talking about how bad things are right now and how (and this is the important part) he could barely afford to support his wife and 10 children.

My first thought was along the lines of "well, maybe you should have invested in a condom" and was in disbelief that he actually convinced himself that he had the right to ask the government to provide the conditions to him in order to support 10 children. I leaned back and expected the journalists/politicians to set him straight. Not a word. Not a single bloody word. They all nodded and assented with phrases like "yes, things are bad".

So i guess the question is: how would people react if you question the number of children they have where you live? I know preventing pregnancies isn't an exact science, particularly for people from a poor background, but is asking for people to be accountable for choices of this sort faux pas?

Curious how this would have played out elsewhere.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Mind if i highjack the thread for a quick question? Just want to make myself an idea of would people react to something i just saw in places i don't reside/visit.

Context: subway union rep invited to a talk show. He is one of several people there. Around 10-12 total including the host, journalists, politicians, union reps and other invitees.

He is very visceral and loud so he kind of highjacks the conversation and starts talking about how bad things are right now and how (and this is the important part) he could barely afford to support his wife and 10 children.

My first thought was along the lines of "well, maybe you should have invested in a condom" and was in disbelief that he actually convinced himself that he had the right to ask the government to provide the conditions to him in order to support 10 children. I leaned back and expected the journalists/politicians to set him straight. Not a word. Not a single bloody word. They all nodded and assented with phrases like "yes, things are bad".

So i guess the question is: how would people react if you question the number of children they have where you live? I know preventing pregnancies isn't an exact science, particularly for people from a poor background, but is asking for people to be accountable for choices of this sort faux pas?

Curious how this would have played out elsewhere.

I think your attitude would be very much in keeping in Scotland. Having loads of kids is frowned upon, particularly if you can't provide for them.

It would be a bit confrontational to call someone a crap father though in a public forum like a talk show. Public confrontation is not the done thing old boy!

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Thanks for the response. A slight comment/question, hope you dont mind.

It would be a bit confrontational to call someone a crap father though in a public forum like a talk show.

But wouldn't it matter that it was him who brought up the subject? Or wouldnt make a difference?
I couldn't help thinking of a tv judge saying "well, you opened yourself to that line of questioning".

In my experience, most cultures have a few things you shouldn't use against people, but if they are the ones bringing it up, well, fair game then.

I dont have a problem with him having 10 kids. I do have a problem with him expecting some sort of government subsidy or something, paid with my taxes, to support his 10 kids.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Have labour taken the American stance whereby criticising Israel is considered anti-Semitic or is there something more to these criticisms?

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Have labour taken the American stance whereby criticising Israel is considered anti-Semitic or is there something more to these criticisms?

It depends on who you listen to and choose to believe. Likely contentious personal opinion here, but the looooong options are:

i) radical Labour elements focus disproportinately on Israel for criticism and show overt support for anti-Israeli terrorists. The same elements denounce MPs who criticise them as being apologists for Zionism. The focus on Israel is unusual and unwarranted and indicates underlying issues (i.e. anti-semitism). Labour's refusal to commit in writing to a denunciation of anti-semitism that is distinct from a denunciation of more general bigotry makes them anti-semites, or at best, soft on anti-semitism.

OR

ii) moderates in the Labour movement have never accepted losing control of the party and, in concert with a right wing media, have completely overblown and taken out of context remarks my Labour members to try and damage the leadership. These moderate elements would use any excuse to throw mud at Corbyn's supporters and, consciously or not, are actively emboldening the right wing in the UK with their attempts to undermine their leadership. If it wasn't anti-semitism it would be something else they would use as ammunition.



I tend to go with option ii). There is no systemic anti-semitism in the Labour party that I can see, but perhaps some over excitable elements in the membership. Every political party has members whose zeal causes the party embarrassment, but they do not represent party policy. There has been no recent scandal that would justify being used as grounds for leaving the party, it is simply a pretence for people scrambling to find a justification for leaving other than "I'm a sore loser and I disagree with Corbyn's handling of Brexit".

Labour used to be strong in Scotland and the suggestion that the movement is filled with racists is, in my opinion, patently absurd. I rub shoulders with Labour diehards in my union capacity and these are honest, decent people committed to fairness and reducing social inequalities (even if I dont agree with some of their politics).

Of the three main UK-wide parties Labour has consistently been the party of racial tolerance and anti-colonialism since its inception. That Labour and myself both refuse to single out bigotry against Jews from general bigotry and racism makes neither of us anti-semites. I find it unforgivable for moderate elements to permit their party to be painted as such by a partisan media simply because they don't agree with the leadership. If I was a Labour party member, I would have no time for them at all and would likely be openly hostile to anyone engaging in such political indiscipline. Right wing Jewish groups denounce Labour, left wing Jewish groups defend and champion them.

And I say all the above as someone who has never voted Labour, just as a neutral observer. You can probably imagine the vitriol within the party between the different factions and how this will contribute to potentially ill judged remarks.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Thanks for the response. A slight comment/question, hope you dont mind.


But wouldn't it matter that it was him who brought up the subject? Or wouldnt make a difference?
I couldn't help thinking of a tv judge saying "well, you opened yourself to that line of questioning".

In my experience, most cultures have a few things you shouldn't use against people, but if they are the ones bringing it up, well, fair game then.

I dont have a problem with him having 10 kids. I do have a problem with him expecting some sort of government subsidy or something, paid with my taxes, to support his 10 kids.

To me it would make a difference that he brought it up. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but criticising someone to their face about how they raise their family (no matter how right you are) is a big step in our culture. At least that is my personal perception.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

It depends on who you listen to and choose to believe. Likely contentious personal opinion here, but the looooong options are:

i) radical Labour elements focus disproportinately on Israel for criticism and show overt support for anti-Israeli terrorists. The same elements denounce MPs who criticise them as being apologists for Zionism. The focus on Israel is unusual and unwarranted and indicates underlying issues (i.e. anti-semitism). Labour's refusal to commit in writing to a denunciation of anti-semitism that is distinct from a denunciation of more general bigotry makes them anti-semites, or at best, soft on anti-semitism.

OR

ii) moderates in the Labour movement have never accepted losing control of the party and, in concert with a right wing media, have completely overblown and taken out of context remarks my Labour members to try and damage the leadership. These moderate elements would use any excuse to throw mud at Corbyn's supporters and, consciously or not, are actively emboldening the right wing in the UK with their attempts to undermine their leadership. If it wasn't anti-semitism it would be something else they would use as ammunition.



I tend to go with option ii). There is no systemic anti-semitism in the Labour party that I can see, but perhaps some over excitable elements in the membership. Every political party has members whose zeal causes the party embarrassment, but they do not represent party policy. There has been no recent scandal that would justify being used as grounds for leaving the party, it is simply a pretence for people scrambling to find a justification for leaving other than "I'm a sore loser and I disagree with Corbyn's handling of Brexit".

Labour used to be strong in Scotland and the suggestion that the movement is filled with racists is, in my opinion, patently absurd. I rub shoulders with Labour diehards in my union capacity and these are honest, decent people committed to fairness and reducing social inequalities (even if I dont agree with some of their politics).

Of the three main UK-wide parties Labour has consistently been the party of racial tolerance and anti-colonialism since its inception. That Labour and myself both refuse to single out bigotry against Jews from general bigotry and racism makes neither of us anti-semites. I find it unforgivable for moderate elements to permit their party to be painted as such by a partisan media simply because they don't agree with the leadership. If I was a Labour party member, I would have no time for them at all and would likely be openly hostile to anyone engaging in such political indiscipline. Right wing Jewish groups denounce Labour, left wing Jewish groups defend and champion them.

And I say all the above as someone who has never voted Labour, just as a neutral observer. You can probably imagine the vitriol within the party between the different factions and how this will contribute to potentially ill judged remarks.

Aye, I can't say I've followed it closely but any of Corbyn's comments that are being criticised don't appear to be remotely anti-semetic to me so option ii) resonates with me more. It annoys me how Israel are more or less untouchable politically despite being an obviously oppressive state.

 

[big ginger 8]

Aye, I can't say I've followed it closely but any of Corbyn's comments that are being criticised don't appear to be remotely anti-semetic to me so option ii) resonates with me more. It annoys me how Israel are more or less untouchable politically despite being an obviously oppressive state.

The amount of calls of anti-semitism around the Anti-Settlement bill was mad. Loads of people (or possibly bots) calling it anti-Israel despite using the UNs list of illegal settlements.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Aye, I can't say I've followed it closely but any of Corbyn's comments that are being criticised don't appear to be remotely anti-semetic to me so option ii) resonates with me more. It annoys me how Israel are more or less untouchable politically despite being an obviously oppressive state.

The Netanyahu government is reprehensible, not least with this policy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-44881554

But prior to that policy I'd argue that, even if I was a Muslim Arab, the Middle East state that would afford me and my family the greatest liberty and freedom was Israel. Yes, the creation of Israel is some seriously controversial business, but so was a lot of post-colonial nonsense (I believe the history of he formation of India is also a tragedy resulting in enforced mass migrations). I detest Netanyahu and all he stands for, but denouncing Israel and giving its neighours a free pass (like some in the hard left can sometimes be guilty of) is like denouncing a black widow spider in a nest of vipers. Not racist, just misjudged.

 

[Gavin]

Aye, I can't say I've followed it closely but any of Corbyn's comments that are being criticised don't appear to be remotely anti-semetic to me so option ii) resonates with me more. It annoys me how Israel are more or less untouchable politically despite being an obviously oppressive state.

The whole anti-Semitic thing with Corbyn is complete rubbish (and yes I might be bias seeing as I support him and the Labour party, but look at the evidence).

He has been a member of parliament since 1983 and it was only in 2015, coincidentally when he became leader of the Labour Party, that there was calls that he was anti-Semitic.

The anti-Semitic calls came from a Facebook post Corbyn made in 2012 regarding a mural which was going to be removed. Corbyn said it shouldn't be removed because of 'Freedom of Speech'. It must have taken the Conservative bots a while to find something they could twist again Corbyn.

If anyone has seen the mural, I don't know how it can be called anti-Semitic. It's an image of businessmen and bankers playing monopoly on the backs of workers - I actually like it a lot - but some of the individuals have Jewish traits (the reason why is because the people are based on actual large banking families, who happen to be Jewish) .

And from then on Corbyn is anti-Semitic.

I know there was also calls he was anti-Semitic when he attended a peace conference in a north African country and in the cemetery there was buried people who were apparently linked to attacks on Israel.

People have also said that he is anti-Semitic because of his criticism of Israel, but anyone in their right mind would critiac Israel regarding their treatment of Palestinian civilians and some of the laws they are enforcing.

Being anti-Zoinist does not make you anti-Semitic.