Politics

[Dr Gloom 19825]

1 hour ago, Alex said:

She’s from Washington. They all speak posh, Dr Gloom for example 

i speak posh, people from washy do not. 

[Alex 30414]

2 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

i speak posh, people from washy do not. 

• 

[Dr Gloom 19825]

57 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I agree, but the SJW left will not.

 

Although I still don't see what would be wrong with Cooper other than that no one likes her for reasons that aren't immediately clear.

cooper isn't running. she's the smartest politician in the mix, and would have had my vote, but i think she realised she didn't have the support - too tainted for her time working in the "tory-lite" cabinet - you know, that terrible period when labour won three elections and changed people's lives for the better. god forbid we go back to those days. 

 

[Dr Gloom 19825]

i'm in the anyone but RLB camp 

[Dr Gloom 19825]

i think Thornberry would probably be a disaster too - her comments about flags of st george will go down like a sack of shit with exactly the kind of voter labour needs to come back.

i'm starting to think nandy might be the dark horse. she is the only candidate apparently understands why corbyn failed - she called it before the election tbf

 

[PaddockLad 14585]

I do not want Jess Phillips as Labour leader. She's how I'd be if I was a politician...lightweight, superficial and lacking intellect. A fuckin show pony. RLB is unelectable for different reasons. Cooper is very good, and if Starmer wins she'll be Home Secretary. Which is another good reason to vote for him. Pity he was a remainder, that will count against him....

[ewerk 26351]

Nandy is too sullen looking to be PM.

[Dr Gloom 19825]

9 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Nandy is too sullen looking to be PM.

why does that matter? it's not like theresa may was a ray of sunshine.

 

[ewerk 26351]

And look what a great campaigner she was.

[Dr Gloom 19825]

i think nandy has a good media presence, which is important, and is a good communicator 

[Dr Gloom 19825]

RLB on Corbyn:

"I’d give him 10 out of 10, because I respect him and I supported him all the way through. What we can’t ignore was that Jeremy was savaged from day one by the press ... We have a role as party to develop the image of our leader and to put them forward in the most positive way, but we also have a duty to rebut criticism and attacks. As a party we needed to have a rebuttal unit, a clear structure in place to rebut the attacks against him."

10 out of 10

[Dr Gloom 19825]

10 out of 10. It would have been 11 out of 10 if it wasn't for the press

 

[Gemmill 34469]

The fucking dickheads waking up to Nandy like I haven't been pumping her name out for weeks. I've forgotten more about Nandy than you lads will ever know. 

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

Randy Nandy.

[Tom 13847]

1 hour ago, Dr Gloom said:

RLB on Corbyn:

"I’d give him 10 out of 10, because I respect him and I supported him all the way through. What we can’t ignore was that Jeremy was savaged from day one by the press ... We have a role as party to develop the image of our leader and to put them forward in the most positive way, but we also have a duty to rebut criticism and attacks. As a party we needed to have a rebuttal unit, a clear structure in place to rebut the attacks against him."

10 out of 10

Regardless of what people think of Corbyn aligning yourself too close too him is a sure fire way to lose an election.

[ewerk 26351]

 

 

RLB: 10/10

[Dr Gloom 19825]

5 hours ago, Tom said:

Regardless of what people think of Corbyn aligning yourself too close too him is a sure fire way to lose an election.

She’s a fucking cretin man. In what world does leading your party to its worst electoral performance in almost a century merit a score of ten out of ten?

I wish she did my career performance review - I’d probably get a pay rise and bonus for slacking off all day on twitter and toontastic 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Dr Gloom

[Rayvin 4964]

Terrorist: A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, for political gain.

 

If the guy Trump assassinated is a terrorist, then the US armed forces are all terrorist organisations, and Obama was a terrorist who commissioned acts of terror against the middle east. Also, Trump is actually attempting to present himself as the textbook definition of one.

 

I get why it's important in some ways that Corbyn pretends that the guy is a terrorist so that the braindead can avoid outrage, but I'm coming close to the limit of what I'm prepared to tolerate in terms of bullshit just to get them on board, and it's been less than a month.

 

He's completely right about everything he says there.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Rayvin

[RobinRobin 9232]

3 hours ago, Dr Gloom said:

She’s a fucking cretin man. In what world does leading your party to its worst electoral performance in almost a century merit a score of ten out of ten?

Given that Corbyn was kept in place by those who are certain that he only lost because of the BBC and others, surely she is playing to the electorate she needs to vote for her.

[ewerk 26351]

8 hours ago, Rayvin said:

Terrorist: A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, for political gain.

 

If the guy Trump assassinated is a terrorist, then the US armed forces are all terrorist organisations, and Obama was a terrorist who commissioned acts of terror against the middle east. Also, Trump is actually attempting to present himself as the textbook definition of one.

 

I get why it's important in some ways that Corbyn pretends that the guy is a terrorist so that the braindead can avoid outrage, but I'm coming close to the limit of what I'm prepared to tolerate in terms of bullshit just to get them on board, and it's been less than a month.

 

He's completely right about everything he says there.

The guy was personally responsible for the funding and support of militias and terrorist groups throughout the region. You don't think he deserves the label of terrorist?

Regardless of whether he does or not it's further evidence that Corbyn was a terrible candidate for PM.

[Gemmill 34469]

If RLB wins the leadership, the Labour Party should just break up. Leave her with all the half-heeds that think she can do the job and everybody else fucks off to form a party under Starmer. 

[Rayvin 4964]

23 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

If RLB wins the leadership, the Labour Party should just break up. Leave her with all the half-heeds that think she can do the job and everybody else fucks off to form a party under Starmer. 

 

Doesn't look like she'll win. And both sides need each other sadly, a new group under Starmer won't win without those who want RLB. Same vice versa obviously.

[Rayvin 4964]

38 minutes ago, ewerk said:

The guy was personally responsible for the funding and support of militias and terrorist groups throughout the region. You don't think he deserves the label of terrorist?

Regardless of whether he does or not it's further evidence that Corbyn was a terrible candidate for PM.

 

The US does literally the same things. I mean the US was funding ISIS at one point. All i'm saying is that if he gets the label of terrorist then so do they.

 

And the fact that no fucker wants to realise that reveals that it is simply a politically useful term for designating "people the US don't like" more than anything genuinely objective. Look at Syria.

 

It's evidence he would have been a terrible PM because he would have been truthful about this point. And heaven fucking knows how dangerous it is to actually point out the hypocrisy of the West. We need leaders who are going to pretend we are righteous. Fucking hell man, you may be right about this in terms of his suitability but it's more evidence that this country and the world in general is just fucking depressing.

 

The notion of having someone who believes in abiding by international law  who urges restraint, and who is strong enough to call out bullshit by the most powerful nation on earth is terrible. Far better we have a quisling.

Edited January 8, 2020 by Rayvin

[Dr Gloom 19825]

18 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

The US does literally the same things. I mean the US was funding ISIS at one point. All i'm saying is that if he gets the label of terrorist then so do they.

 

And the fact that no fucker wants to realise that reveals that it is simply a politically useful term for designating "people the US don't like" more than anything genuinely objective. Look at Syria.

 

It's evidence he would have been a terrible PM because he would have been truthful about this point. And heaven fucking knows how dangerous it is to actually point out the hypocrisy of the West. We need leaders who are going to pretend we are righteous. Fucking hell man, you may be right about this in terms of his suitability but it's more evidence that this country and the world in general is just fucking depressing.

 

The notion of having someone who believes in abiding by international law  who urges restraint, and who is strong enough to call out bullshit by the most powerful nation on earth is terrible. Far better we have a quisling.

You’re not wrong about lots of this, but it’s whataboutery.

He was a terrorist - why not just say it? Failing to do so while condemning our allies isn’t a vote winner, other than with the stop the war coalition fringe. Must people in this country aren’t pacifists and the next leader has to at least pretend to be tough on defence and security.

[Dr Gloom 19825]

And I think you can abide by international law and urge restraint in a more pragmatic way. Corbyn always defends the terrorists on the other side to the west. Has he ever spoken with the Israelis or the Ulster unionists?