The Politics Thread 2020

[Stive Pesley]

25 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

You got the words 'non grooming gang' and 'white' mixed up? ? I really have heard it all now!

No - I didn't get them mixed up. I just wasn't being as politically correct as you.  

[1of4]

27 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

It's not a smear, it was just an opinion on how he handled something.

Your opinion seem to closely follow the tweets, or horse muck throwing as @Eddie succinctly put it, of a number of Tories. But it was a smear, so thats ok.

[sheeponacid]

23 hours ago, ariotofmyown said:

Are all those people who complained so bitterly about not having a decent opposition now happy that we have Starmer there to hold these liars to account?

Well for what it’s worth I think we had a better opposition leader before...a left wing leader...those that see Starmer as a preferred opposition leader, are mainly the centrists who loved the days of Blair’s  blue on slightly paler blue...

Whats the point in having two differing shades of Tory party...it’s these same ducking corporate globalisationists who couldn’t just except the referendum vote, & allow Corbyn to concentrate on offering the nation a clear left wing leave option, that cost him a lot of the red wall....these elite Borris bashes, actually proved to be his best buddies at the last election.

Ducking right wingers everywhere...just different shades of them...still I’ve got to admit, that there probably isn’t enough left wingers to win an election anymore...so maybe it is best, to just let the different right wing factions fight it out.

[1of4]

9 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I wouldn't know what is going on behind the scenes but the actions of yesterday would not really show him as being cooperative.

As I've said though, I have no problem with him holding the Government to account.

What was it that Sharmer did yesterday, that made him appear uncooperative?

[ariotofmyown]

41 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Of course my motive was to question Keir Starmer when another poster was trying to talk him up as white than white.

Actually think Starmer comes across quite well, looks a very accomplished character.

We are all still waiting to hear more about his terrible failings in prosecuting child grooming gangs. The Times article was hardly critical of the job he did. I was expecting loads of articles posted about his awful performance in the role. Maybe they've been taken down, like the Tory MPs tweets on the subject.

Far from saying he was whiter than white, I was actually responding to a post that said lawyers = liars. I said that the negative opinions towards liars tend to be those who get dodgy people and companies to avoid justice, rather than those who are prosecutors.

Turns out you think Starmer "comes across quite well, and looks a very accomplished character". Which was my original point, comparing him to your guy Johnson, who is looking more hopeless by the day.

What's that you say? Johnson isn't "your guy" and actually you don't think he is much good anyway? You just defend him, well, because one person has too? And it's a good way to get into never ending circular arguments about racism or identity politics or something that everyone gets pretty bored of pretty quickly.

I get it. You Brexiteers are looking at the current mess and are thinking what if Brexit turns out to be something similar. Well it's probably going too unfortunately. The horse you backed is a liar and incompetent. And that was perfectly obvious a long time ago. 

 

[ariotofmyown]

10 minutes ago, sheeponacid said:

Well for what it’s worth I think we had a better opposition leader before...a left wing leader...those that see Starmer as a preferred opposition leader, are mainly the centrists who loved the days of Blair’s  blue on slightly paler blue...

Whats the point in having two differing shades of Tory party...it’s these same ducking corporate globalisationists who couldn’t just except the referendum vote, & allow Corbyn to concentrate on offering the nation a clear left wing leave option, that cost him a lot of the red wall....these elite Borris bashes, actually proved to be his best buddies at the last election.

Ducking right wingers everywhere...just different shades of them...still I’ve got to admit, that there probably isn’t enough left wingers to win an election anymore...so maybe it is best, to just let the different right wing factions fight it out.

Dad was a toolmaker and his mom a nurse I think. Typical elite.

I liked what Corbyn stood for, but he didn't do a great job at getting into power. I don't think we can deal with many more years of these Tories. No one even likes them much as well.

I do think Corbyn helped dragged the centre back towards the left a bit though. Remember the stick Ed Milliband got for being far left. Tories ended up nicking his policies.

[ramit]

5 minutes ago, sheeponacid said:

Well for what it’s worth I think we had a better opposition leader before...a left wing leader...those that see Starmer as a preferred opposition leader, are mainly the centrists who loved the days of Blair’s  blue on slightly paler blue...

Whats the point in having two differing shades of Tory party...it’s these same ducking corporate globalisationists who couldn’t just except the referendum vote, & allow Corbyn to concentrate on offering the nation a clear left wing leave option, that cost him a lot of the red wall....these elite Borris bashes, actually proved to be his best buddies at the last election.

Ducking right wingers everywhere...just different shades of them...still I’ve got to admit, that there probably isn’t enough left wingers to win an election anymore...so maybe it is best, to just let the different right wing factions fight it out.

The situation of the left becoming more right leaning has been long in the making, all throughout the western world and probably further afield as well.  i recall debates i had with my once radical left wing father, who was an outstanding ambitious teacher, continuously at odds with school authorities, about how to tackle the damage that capitalism had inflicted on the higher level schools.  He was of the opinion that the schools and their pupils needed diligent fighters on their behalf to lessen the damage done.  My opinion was and is that it was a losing battle, capitalism would always come out on top in the end and such and approach would actually help keep that system in place.  Let the schools fall apart was my cry, let the disparity and inequality of students to higher education become painfully evident, so that the cause of it would have to be rejected and a fairer system taking it's place.

[ariotofmyown]

It's ok everyone, I've found the "evidence" of how Starmer failed us in his investigations of child grooming gangs.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/14/labour-urges-tory-mps-to-admit-keir-starmer-video-was-doctored

[Bob The Badger]

2 hours ago, ramit said:

Tony Blair did more international damage than any other British PM i can think of.  He took the country to war in Iraq based on a shameless lie, a lie he has never apologized for.  

Obviously you're too young to remember Thatcher ignoring CIA intelligence saying the Argentinians were going to try and take the Falklands because it fed her political expediency with a forthcoming election she looked like losing.

Plus, ya know, a bunch of leaders in our history who took us into wars over the years that we had no right to be in.

Just because you can't think of anything off the top of your head doesn't mean it never happened.

I was against the Iraq war and I dislike Blair, but I doubt any British PM in living memory would have stood up the the Americans after 9/11 and effectively said, 'nope, we ain't with you on this one'

Churchill would almost certainly have said, 'let's rick and roll' or words to that effect.

At least you had the guts to admit you got the whole Libya accusation wrong even if you didn't exit gracefully, but insteand had to effectively say, 'Yeh but what about Afghanistan?' 

[Eatonram]

5 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

It's ok everyone, I've found the "evidence" of how Starmer failed us in his investigations of child grooming gangs.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/14/labour-urges-tory-mps-to-admit-keir-starmer-video-was-doctored

Unbelievable. One thing that has stayed consistent in Politics all my life, there are no depths that the Tories wont plumb to smear any Labour leader.

With Ed Milliband they even did it via his dead father.

[Eatonram]

1 hour ago, ramit said:

You are correct, i was in error, it was Cameron.  Leading Britain to an endless war in Afhanistan should have been the second example.  Another country in shambles.

The Afghanistan campaign bore no comparison to Iraq. The campaign in Afghaistan was supported by the United Nations resolution 1386. It was UN Authorised and nothing to do with Tony Blair. Revising history is yet another right wing trait I'm afraid.

[ramit]

12 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

Obviously you're too young to remember Thatcher ignoring CIA intelligence saying the Argentinians were going to try and take the Falklands because it fed her political expediency with a forthcoming election she looked like losing.

Plus, ya know, a bunch of leaders in our history who took us into wars over the years that we had no right to be in.

Just because you can't think of anything off the top of your head doesn't mean it never happened.

I was against the Iraq war and I dislike Blair, but I doubt any British PM in living memory would have stood up the the Americans after 9/11 and effectively said, 'nope, we ain't with you on this one'

Churchill would almost certainly have said, 'let's rick and roll' or words to that effect.

At least you had the guts to admit you got the whole Libya accusation wrong even if you didn't exit gracefully, but insteand had to effectively say, 'Yeh but what about Afghanistan?' 

i wish i was too young to remember Thatcher actually.  Consider the horror story that was and is Iraq a weightier example, but to each their own opinion.  i find the first part of your response therefor ineffective and rather tediously condescending, but to each their own sense of classy comebacks.

Guts i have never lacked, nor humility when found to be in error, a trait i most heartily recommend, yet often see a deficiency of.  i corrected myself by stating that the second example should not have been Libya, but rather Afghanistan.  That is not whataboutery at all.

[ramit]

11 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

The Afghanistan campaign bore no comparison to Iraq. The campaign in Afghaistan was supported by the United Nations resolution 1386. It was UN Authorised and nothing to do with Tony Blair. Revising history is yet another right wing trait I'm afraid.

You might want to revise your opinion of me being right wing.?

[Eatonram]

1 minute ago, ramit said:

i wish i was too young to remember Thatcher actually.  Consider the horror story that was and is Iraq a weightier example, but to each their own opinion.  i find the first part of your response therefor ineffective and rather tediously condescending, but to each their own sense of classy comebacks.

Guts i have never lacked, nor humility when found to be in error, a trait i most heartily recommend, yet often see a deficiency of.  i corrected myself by stating that the second example should not have been Libya, but rather Afghanistan.  That is not whataboutery at all.

Except you were wrong about Afghanistan also I'm afraid as you tried to pin responsibility on Blair for what was a United Nations approved action under the ISAF (International Security Action Force) banner. Time for your fabled humility I'm afraid.

[Spanish]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

It's not a smear, it was just an opinion on how he handled something.

I have no problem with him holding the Government to account either.

It is a smear no doubt about it

[G STAR RAM]

54 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

Your opinion seem to closely follow the tweets, or horse muck throwing as @Eddie succinctly put it, of a number of Tories. But it was a smear, so thats ok.

I dont even know what tweets you are referring to?

[Eddie]

7 minutes ago, ramit said:

You might want to revise your opinion of me being right wing.?

As Frank Zappa once said, "Everyone in this room is wearing a uniform, and don't kid yourselves".

[Bob The Badger]

16 minutes ago, ramit said:

Guts i have never lacked, nor humility when found to be in error, a trait i most heartily recommend, yet often see a deficiency of.  i corrected myself by stating that the second example should not have been Libya, but rather Afghanistan.  That is not whataboutery at all.

What you said:

You are correct, i was in error, it was Cameron.  Leading Britain to an endless war in Afhanistan should have been the second example.  Another country in shambles.

What you would have said if you were genuinely humble and avoided whataboutery.

You are correct, i was in error, it was Cameron. Sorry.

[Bob The Badger]

7 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

Except you were wrong about Afghanistan also I'm afraid as you tried to pin responsibility on Blair for what was a United Nations approved action under the ISAF (International Security Action Force) banner. Time for your fabled humility I'm afraid.

You and your facts sir!

 

[ramit]

4 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

Except you were wrong about Afghanistan also I'm afraid as you tried to pin responsibility on Blair for what was a United Nations approved action under the ISAF (International Security Action Force) banner. Time for your fabled humility I'm afraid.

The war in Afghanistan was authorized by UN because no one with veto power had the guts to stand up to the USA.  It was a case of bullying and bribing one of the reasons why the UN does not live up to it's name or charter IMO.  The USA accused the Taliban of harboring and assisting Bin Laden whom they blamed for orchestrating 9/11, a laughable assertion, which if you don't know it, you are not worth my time or effort in responding to.  Don't confuse humility with allowing someone to unjustly attempt to stream-roll me into submission fella.