Politics

[Renton 20620]

And by the way polls showed Sanders beating Trump by more than Clinton. No surprise to see you supporting the corrupt centrist rather than a genuine left winger.

The first thing I admitted was that I didn't really know enough about Sanders to pass comment. I never said I supported Clinton either, only that I preferred her to trump. Interesting to see you appear to be reverting to Momentum type with your hominem response.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Renton

[Rayvin 5131]

With the caveat that I can also see Renton's side that, if you believe Islam to be a surpremacist ideology, then logically you would assume talking to them wouldn't work.

[Rayvin 5131]

The first thing I admitted was that I didn't really know enough about Sanders to pass comment. I never said I supported Clinton either, only that I preferred her to trump. Interesting to see you appear to be reverting to Momentum type with your hominem response.

Momentum have a type now? Come off it man, people on all sides use the same arguing strategies.

[Happy Face 29]

That's not really the point though is it? Corbyn thinks he can sit down with a cup of tea with the likes of ISIS and come to a peace deal. 

 

 

That's Smith's position.  Corbyn ridiculed him for it.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyns-isis-joke-4-8872308

[Renton 20620]

I'm gonna go ahead and suggest that you didn't go into this experience with an objective viewpoint.

Is anyone objective?

 

What did you think of Corbyn's idea of building the fleet of vanguard submarines but then not arming them? Sensible?

[NJS 4281]

Fuck off man. I've never supported any military intervention by the west in the Middle East ever. The point I was trying to make, which might become clear if you watched the interview, was that Corbyn was projecting himself as some peace broker as if you can reason with these people. He came across as utterly ridiculous.

Every bunch of terrorists the UK has ever dealt with have eventually sat around a table and had a peace brokered. The possible exception is Israel which worked out well.

 

Maybe if we'd done that at the start of the conflicts, less people would have died on all sides.

[NJS 4281]

The first thing I admitted was that I didn't really know enough about Sanders to pass comment. I never said I supported Clinton either, only that I preferred her to trump. Interesting to see you appear to be reverting to Momentum type with your hominem response.

I was just saying that your view of policies seems more NL than Sanders or Corbyn which suggests a "Blairite" like Clinton would be your preference - nowt personal, just views.

[Renton 20620]

That's Smith's position. Corbyn ridiculed him for it.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyns-isis-joke-4-8872308

Smith's position was idiotic and I don't support it either. I assume you missed news at ten last night as well btw.

 

I see also nobody's mentioned the fact that Clive Lewis's speech was doctored by corbyn's mob. It's like animal farm.

[Happy Face 29]

Smith's position was idiotic and I don't support it either. I assume you missed news at ten last night as well btw.

 

I see also nobody's mentioned the fact that Clive Lewis's speech was doctored by corbyn's mob. It's like animal farm.

 

I'm in bed for half nine.  No mention of ISIS in the write up though...

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37487312

 

Also....

 

 

Clive Lewis said he was "really pleased" with the speech, adding there was "nothing to see here"

 

[Rayvin 5131]

Political aides for leadership change speech for MP. That's animal farm? I think every government in history could be accused of being animal farm then.

 

FFS Renton, there's some solid and meaningful criticisms to make of Corbyn but a lot of what you're going for is the sort of hysteria that the right wing press would go for. He isn't this demonic figure - he's a lefty and with traditional lefty ideas, and he is being opposed by half of his party, leading him to take steps to get things under control. This is fucking normal - this is what he should have been doing last year. If he doesn't do this, Labour will continue to struggle.

 

I don't personally believe Corbyn is treating his MPs any differently, at present, to how May treats hers.

[Renton 20620]

I was just saying that your view of policies seems more NL than Sanders or Corbyn which suggests a "Blairite" like Clinton would be your preference - nowt personal, just views.

I honestly don't know enough about US politics to make an informed comment. I've heard the arguments that Clinton is corrupt, and I recall Gemmill saying a Trump victory would be preferable, but honestly, I find the shear hatred of her is way ott. I just don't get it.

[Rayvin 5131]

I am curious as to Corbyn's position on ISIS if it's not the same as Smith's though. Assuming Smith's is talking to them.

[Dr Gloom 21568]

A trump victory would be an unmitigated holocaust of a disaster

[Rayvin 5131]

I honestly don't know enough about US politics to make an informed comment. I've heard the arguments that Clinton is corrupt, and I recall Gemmill saying a Trump victory would be preferable, but honestly, I find the shear hatred of her is way ott. I just don't get it.

 

It's not hatred I don't think, but effectively the US had a choice between someone actually left wing who would have helped people, and someone to the right of Theresa May on the payroll of Wall Street who is a demonstrable liar who by the sounds of it, should be prosecuted by the FBI - as their left wing candidates. It's the fact that the establishment, again, as usual, is going to win. Despite the shitshow on offer.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Rayvin

[Renton 20620]

Political aides for leadership change speech for MP. That's animal farm? I think every government in history could be accused of being animal farm then.

 

FFS Renton, there's some solid and meaningful criticisms to make of Corbyn but a lot of what you're going for is the sort of hysteria that the right wing press would go for. He isn't this demonic figure - he's a lefty and with traditional lefty ideas, and he is being opposed by half of his party, leading him to take steps to get things under control. This is fucking normal - this is what he should have been doing last year. If he doesn't do this, Labour will continue to struggle.

 

I don't personally believe Corbyn is treating his MPs any differently, at present, to how May treats hers.

That last sentence is simply incredible. I don't see any point in further discussion tbh.

[Rayvin 5131]

That last sentence is simply incredible. I don't see any point in further discussion tbh.

 

I see.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3742]

I honestly don't know enough about US politics to make an informed comment. I've heard the arguments that Clinton is corrupt, and I recall Gemmill saying a Trump victory would be preferable, but honestly, I find the shear hatred of her is way ott. I just don't get it.

 

 

How much do you hate Corbyn?

[Meenzer 15199]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/stop-pretending-you-dont-_b_12191766.html

 

[Renton 20620]

How much do you hate Corbyn?

I don't hate the man, but I do hate what he has done to the party. I hate the fact that he has ensured at least another 5 years of right wing conservative government and that is going to hit me and millions of others hard.

[Renton 20620]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/stop-pretending-you-dont-_b_12191766.html

 

Thanks for that Meenzer, quite refreshing. I'll be honest and say I quite like Hillary Clinton. There, I said it.

[Rayvin 5131]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/stop-pretending-you-dont-_b_12191766.html

 

 

That utter bollocks might stand up if the issue here was people preferring Trump to Clinton - in left wing circles, that's not what's happening. People don't want either of them, and it's not because, ffs, she's a woman. This is why a healthy number of people were dismayed when she didn't choose Elizabeth Warren as her running mate. Going further, Warren as a presidential candidate would have been credible, well respected, and would have blown Trump apart. As would Sanders in truth, but given that we have to make this about identity politics, Warren is a better bet.

 

The problem that the Huffington Post and (being honest) the Guardian have, both now so far up their own arses on identity politics that they've lost sight of what they're actually supposed to stand for, is that they keep framing this as people preferring Trump. Obviously a lot of people do. But that likely has more to do with his (believe it or not) positive stance and views, and his ridiculous promises. Sarah Palin could be running instead with a similar platform to Trump, and Hillary would be suffering from identical issues. In fact, I almost wish Palin was running so that we could dispense with this ridiculous identity politics nonsense once and for all.

 

She's not in trouble here because she's a woman. Even for Trump supporters, while I daresay sexism might be a component for them if both candidates were equal on policy, they're clearly voting for what they think he will deliver, rather than voting for what gender he is.

 

The real problem though, the absolute root issue, is that the current Western political system is failing too many people. On all sides, in most classes. This is why we have UKIP, Brexit, Corbyn, Sanders, Left and Right wing parties on the rise across Europe. This is not a gendered issue. Hillary is the middle of the road establishment stooge, and she's being battered for it.

[Rayvin 5131]

Depressingly, I feel compelled to add that with the choice between the two - I would vote for Clinton as well. I'd hate myself for it though.

[Renton 20620]

That utter bollocks might stand up if the issue here was people preferring Trump to Clinton - in left wing circles, that's not what's happening. People don't want either of them, and it's not because, ffs, she's a woman. This is why a healthy number of people were dismayed when she didn't choose Elizabeth Warren as her running mate. Going further, Warren as a presidential candidate would have been credible, well respected, and would have blown Trump apart. As would Sanders in truth, but given that we have to make this about identity politics, Warren is a better bet.

 

The problem that the Huffington Post and (being honest) the Guardian have, both now so far up their own arses on identity politics that they've lost sight of what they're actually supposed to stand for, is that they keep framing this as people preferring Trump. Obviously a lot of people do. But that likely has more to do with his (believe it or not) positive stance and views, and his ridiculous promises. Sarah Palin could be running instead with a similar platform to Trump, and Hillary would be suffering from identical issues. In fact, I almost wish Palin was running so that we could dispense with this ridiculous identity politics nonsense once and for all.

 

She's not in trouble here because she's a woman. Even for Trump supporters, while I daresay sexism might be a component for them if both candidates were equal on policy, they're clearly voting for what they think he will deliver, rather than voting for what gender he is.

 

The real problem though, the absolute root issue, is that the current Western political system is failing too many people. On all sides, in most classes. This is why we have UKIP, Brexit, Corbyn, Sanders, Left and Right wing parties on the rise across Europe. This is not a gendered issue. Hillary is the middle of the road establishment stooge, and she's being battered for it.

You dislike her because she's a middle of the road establishment stooge? Would that apply to Obama as well? Is being middle of the road such a bad thing anyway?

 

I don't think her gender is completely irrelevant either. For all your tirade there, you've not really addressed any of the points the article made. Why don't any Clinton's predecessors such as Kerry have to endure such vitriol? But whether it's gender related or not, she's being unfairly treated and characterised imo.

[NJS 4281]

She should be disqualified on the email server alone on the grounds of stupidity. I know that would apply to others but she sells herself on competence.

 

She's flipped on several key issues like gay marriage and trade agreements and won't release her Wall St speeches presumably because they consist of "do what you like, I'll look after you".

 

The access given to Clinton Foundation donors also stinks.

 

Overall though I guess people see her as having strived "too hard" for power and I'm sure there is some sexism in that view but I think it's pretty true as well.

[Rayvin 5131]

You dislike her because she's a middle of the road establishment stooge? Would that apply to Obama as well? Is being middle of the road such a bad thing anyway?

 

I don't think her gender is completely irrelevant either. For all your tirade there, you've not really addressed any of the points the article made. Why don't any Clinton's predecessors such as Kerry have to endure such vitriol? But whether it's gender related or not, she's being unfairly treated and characterised imo.

 

Alright so first off, that was a bit of a rant - apologies.

 

Yes I dislike her because she's an establishment stooge. Yes that would apply to Obama as well, who I think we can all agree didn't achieve anywhere near as much, for a variety of reasons, as we hoped he would. The circumstances surrounding his elections were different though. I don't think widespread disillusionment had set in by that point. In fact, I'd say that's the whole issue right there - the *current* geo-political trend is that the middle of the road political stance is failing. She represents it.

 

That said, if everything we think we know about her dodgy dealings is incorrect, and other presidential candidates haven't, historically, been subjected to a similar level of scrutiny, then she's being hard done by. I think for me, it all becomes quite easy to believe after this:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582795/Hillary-Clintons-Bosnia-sniper-story-exposed.html

 

That was basically the first time Hillary Clinton showed up on my radar as someone who was taking politics seriously, and it left a rather poor impression.