Discussion in 'Politics' started by Frontstep, May 11, 2017.
He's a scruffy fecker
Of course you can disagree.
Just as I can disagree with you.
I am bemused and baffled by people who believe Corbyn to be a decent, well meaning, man of principle. He was, and still is, a lifelong supporter of the IRA. No decent human being could put themselves in that position.
He is a sinister Marxist. A wolf in sheeps clothing. Don't be fooled by that sincere smile.
As the post is about Corbyn then when all is said and done, no matter what his views are, he simply isnt up to the job. He cant run a political party, lost the vote of no confidence, has an appauling record of supporting terrorists, ignoring race issues and appointing incompetant 'friends' to the front bench because no-one else will do it. The man simply hasnt got the credentials for any office other than political agitator. How anyone can think he can do the job of PM beggars belief.
If Labour had an intelligent, articulate and educated leader I would take them and all arguments that suport their party a lot more seriously. As they are at present, they are a laughing stock. The butt of many jokes and to be pitied.
I don't see how you can contain them. The present area of relevance in the middle east is massive and without real borders.
They will continue to get assistance from states that sympathies, and that will include air transport.
And that ignores the African nutters, the kidnap of the Chibok girls demonstrates the difficulty of finding them whn they don't want.
Then how the hell do you recognise them in their thousands when they change hats to disguise and disperse, to be ready to return when they perceive the time to be right 'again'.
I believe the West must discredit and ridicule their ideals and show them to be only realistic in the minds of the corrupt Muslim, show 'em the benefits of Nike, big tellies and porn (we agreed on that bit before).
Meet what's left on the plains of Dabiq and incinerate 'em.
Perhaps the turtle is best left up there, in plain sight.
It's safer for the rest that he can't do any harm while up there, well I'm not seeing much possibility of it anyway.
Each time he emits cr*p we can see it, over time more will realise it's the same cr*p as before and take less notice.
One can't contain them. My point was that even if they were contained, there are so many factions within what we bundle together as Daesh/ ISIL/ ISIS etc. that they would be at each others throats soon enough anyway. That is, the one thing unifying them is that they hate outsiders more than they hate anyone who isn't in their own clan/ family/ tribe/ specific branch of religion.
As Carl and I have pointed out a few times, the battleground is the people. The only winning strategy to combat any form of insurrection is to win over the people, for it is they that both provide support to the government (in a structured society) and the rebels/ dissidents etc- whatever name one wishes to use. If one can get the people to distance themselves from, and actively defend themselves (with aid) from the likes of Daesh, the rebels have nowhere to hide and all that's needed are a few mops and buckets. It is the people who know who the rebels in their midst are, therefore it is the people that must be brought to bear on those rebels.
It looks to me as though the labour party has a death wish.
The trouble is, it's rather like the saying about fooling all of the people some (or all) of the time, because he swelled the branch level rank and file membership who support him (unless as someone suggested the large increase in party members was actually down to "other" people taking membership so they could cause mischief internally?). As a result the elected MPs have their hands pretty well tied and they can only really play a waiting game until they get another chance to get rid of him or resign en masse - but first I don't think there are that many MPs with sufficient "devotion to duty" to give up their position and all that goes with it. Secondly, the latter could simply open doors for the branch members who it appears currently support Corbyn! And of course they would be in for a long wait because he has already announced that "if" he fails to win the election he will continue as leader.
- And still they all clap him when he appears in public!
- At least he wears a suit and (usually) tie. You obviously don't remember Michael Foot who used to wear what looked like a donkey jacket. Regardless of his party, I felt quite ashamed to see a senior member of our parliament appear at the Remembrance Parade dressed like that.
You know that his appearance is deliberately calculated to achieve a certain response, don't you Dave? You must view everything that a politician says or does as deliberate. You see him as a scruffy cnut; others- 1970s miners perhaps- see him as a "man of the people".
Maybe not Diane Abbot,
does that make her more spontaneous and less manipulative?
They didn't say that about Michael Foot!
Even her. It might be that the likes of we here do not identify with her target audience- they might literally be on another world...
Sorry, I was being sarcastic.
I didn't think her policeman and woman for a tenner statement was deliberate,
although saying they had lost 50 seats when she then confessed it was only 100 last time she looked was, but not the confession bit.
Yes I usually do...
- Just like Theresa Maybe supported Remain then did her first big u-turn to get the "I am" job.
- And I still wonder... was she lying then or is she is lying now (or maybe both?).
No. That was just her showing that she is in the different reality... or being thick
every politician... Every- Single- One... changes their mind publically, when it suits them to do so. If that is to get more power then so be it. Look at it this way, the Tories had a quick, clean and sharp leadership election, they got themselves squared away with no fuss whatsoever in 3 weeks from start to finish. May, as Home Secretary was always going to be a front runner in any leadership contest. She got the Big Job, and with that came a specific mandate to take the country out of the EU. She could hardly say no to it no matter what she'd said before (Corbyn might do, but that's another story...) And while we;re at it, look at who the contenders for that job were. Her, Leadsom, Gove, Crabb & Fox. Of that lot who would you rather have gotten in? Remember, election rule no.1- win the damn election... someone with a real chance of getting in.
If you want a really good grounding in what is going on right now, just go back and watch Yes, Minister/ Prime Minister for a few episodes. One moment something is great. the next it's a vote loser so it stops getting supported.
Yes, I know all that, Craig and I watched all the Yes Minister series back in the beginning when they were all in black and white... OMG I think was nor more than 20 at the beginning! Incidentally, Maggie Thatcher was a fan of the series and in an interview she implied that there was indeed a great deal of truth in it!
What I fundamentally dislike is the way the Maybe u-turns are given out like a "truth". I said right at the beginning that if she (or any MP) had taken on the job and said "I voted to remain but I will comply with the wishes of the people" I would respect that. But it's the hypocritical way in which we've been treated to preaching the exact opposite of what she said as a remain supporter that irritates me so much. I posted a whole series of her comments that she subsequently reversed -including financial methodology (- so again as I said, it would seem she was either lying then or she is now!). Then you add the way she treated the public to childish nonsense such as "I want a red white and blue Brexit" - this crap coming from our Prime Minister! Add what I still believe is an ongoing lack of planning coupled with the evangelistic "I'm going to put right all injustices" while this week she's introducing a few more in her manifesto (which may have come from other "advisers" but I'm sure she's strong enough to reject things she doesn't really want). The last straw had to be the repeated denial that she would call or need to call a general election - at least five public statements where she said not before 2020 - was she lying before or lying when she made her u-turn for that? - Either way, I agree with LK's viewpoint and I don't trust her one little bit.
I don't trust her either. Or any other one. What I do trust is for her to do what is in their best interests. Now, that means putting the country on its best grounding to be as successful as it can be as a discrete trading entity separate from the EU. Again, of all the politicians we currently have, can you think of one who could do that job any better? I can't.
I can lets go get Frank Underwood
Separate names with a comma.