Politics General Election 2017

[Scouse]

Here we go. Bit of honesty. No matter what Corbyn does, it won't be enough. It's just another attempt to unseat him, fuelled from within the party and assisted by the Israel lobby. He was clearly right to stand his ground then.

Old guard is hating it. Establishment is genuinely worried. I'm not loving him, but if we're going to have shit politics then it's good to feel that the "elites" are bricking it too.

 

[Job]

He said he wouldnt use our nukes.
I mean seriously, how is he even let in the door after that one.

 

[Scouse]

He said he wouldnt use our nukes.
I mean seriously, how is he even let in the door after that one.

He's representing a large section of the UK public who would unequivocally rule out the mass murder of millions of innocents for political gain.

War serves politics. It's a political tool. Indescriminate murder should not be used as a political tool.

 

[Job]

Yes..but if youre not going to use them..then come out and say you will scrap them the day you get into power.

 

[Scouse]

He would have final say over use but would not over scrapping them.

 

[Moriath]

We have agreements with a lot of people. Usa, nato, eu that we have a nuclear deterant. Its not as easy as just scrapping cause we feel like it.

 

[Wij]

Here we go. Bit of honesty. No matter what Corbyn does, it won't be enough. It's just another attempt to unseat him, fuelled from within the party and assisted by the Israel lobby. He was clearly right to stand his ground then.

Old guard is hating it. Establishment is genuinely worried. I'm not loving him, but if we're going to have shit politics then it's good to feel that the "elites" are bricking it too.

Elites?

 

[Scouse]

Elites?

Establishment. Well funded vested interests etc. That's why I put it in quotes.

He's certainly a threat to the status quo.

 

[Job]

We have agreements with a lot of people. Usa, nato, eu that we have a nuclear deterant. Its not as easy as just scrapping cause we feel like it.

Im not sure about that, but the second Corbyn got in power we might as well turn the whole thing off and give rides to children in the subs.
The Russians are spending billions based around our nukes in a Europe based defence strategy.
Once comrade Corbzn got in power they could obviously ignore the French and start invading till the Americans got upset...which these days would be around Belgium.

 

[DaGaffer]

Im not sure about that, but the second Corbyn got in power we might as well turn the whole thing off and give rides to children in the subs.
The Russians are spending billions based around our nukes in a Europe based defence strategy.
Once comrade Corbzn got in power they could obviously ignore the French and start invading till the Americans got upset...which these days would be around Belgium.

The Russians couldn't invade my back garden. This isn't 1945; the Russians don't have the men or the money to sustain a real invasion and can only develop new kit if India bankrolls it; that's why Russia puts so much effort into information warfare; a united west is terrifying for them.

 

[Embattle]

Corbyn isn't getting in to power.

 

[Scouse]

Corbyn isn't getting in to power.

Agree.

But there's a fucking huge concerted effort to make sure that doesn't happen isn't there. Just in case...

 

[Job]

The Russians couldn't invade my back garden. This isn't 1945; the Russians don't have the men or the money to sustain a real invasion and can only develop new kit if India bankrolls it; that's why Russia puts so much effort into information warfare; a united west is terrifying for them.

Oh..right..must tell Crimea that.
They have every desire to slowly pinch back ex USSR countries by any method possible, a British pacifist leader would be perfect for them.

 

[Wij]

Oh..right..must tell Crimea that.
They have every desire to slowly pinch back ex USSR countries by any method possible, a British pacifist leader would be perfect for them.

Sort of agree, but it's also worth mentioning that the continuing invasion of Eastern Ukraine is costing Russia a lot more than Putin imagined and not getting very far very fast.

 

[Gwadien]

Gaffer is completely right, information warfare is infinitely more damaging than nukes anyway, but we're so bothered about nukes still but massively neglecting our cyber security.

 

[Job]

I wouldnt normally say this, but Russian cyber interference is seriously overated.
People are blaming everything on the Ruskies..and unless thats their double bluff intention, its not going well.
I posted a troll reply on ocean plastics for a laugh...got a shed load of replies accusing me of being a Russian troll.
People like Putin because he appears strong...they wont admit it in public, he is Russias greatest asset at the moment.

 

[Embattle]

Agree.

But there's a fucking huge concerted effort to make sure that doesn't happen isn't there. Just in case...

It really hasn't been a huge effort. I'm someone who criticises Israeli for certain actions it takes but I'm in no way antisemitic and I dislike attempts to merge one with the other but there is a major difference I have with JC, I don't tend to take a stage with terrorists who want to see Israeli/Jews completely destroyed while criticising Israeli.

He also never really got a grip on the Labour antisemitism issue once it started to roll, he did what he has done during the brexit debate in essence he kept his head down and hid hoping no one would dig up parts of his past that clearly weaken him on the subject.

 

[Gwadien]

I wouldnt normally say this, but Russian cyber interference is seriously overated.
People are blaming everything on the Ruskies..and unless thats their double bluff intention, its not going well.
I posted a troll reply on ocean plastics for a laugh...got a shed load of replies accusing me of being a Russian troll.
People like Putin because he appears strong...they wont admit it in public, he is Russias greatest asset at the moment.

I've got a relative who has done some advisory stuff for the Government at high level for IT security, he's sat in meetings with the PM.

He says that we're not prepared, and we're not taking it seriously at all.

You're probably right, Russians probably aren't that good, but we're just fucking awful at protecting ourselves.

 

[Scouse]

I don't tend to take a stage with terrorists who want to see Israeli/Jews completely destroyed while criticising Israeli.

I dislike both these tropes. They're so often repeated there's an assumption of truth where no absolute version exists - and a dismissal of the complexity of a complex situation.

1) On "terrorists": If you're going to stand shoulder to shoulder with any Palestinian activists, you're going to stand shoulder to shoulder with someone that's being labelled a terrorist from one source or another. It can't be avoided.

Aside from the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" stance that people used to acknowledge when discussing the entrenched positions of enemies - it's interesting to note that when any of the the establishment figures stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Benjamin Netanyahu, the president of an institutionally racist apartheid country that is only avoiding prosecution for regular war-crimes against its captive prisoner population, is because the west is turning a blind eye to Israeli terrorism, headed by him.

Both sides are guilty of "terrorism" - if you must call it that.

2) Israeli/Jews completely destroyed? I've no doubt that some of the population would feel that way (Job would love that with all black people and muslims). But no, that's not an adult appraisal of the situation. It's infantilising the situation into jingoistic nonsense.

It's about the state of Israel being for Jews being destroyed. Zionism being destroyed. And, unless you like the idea of a country being for a particular sect of loony god-botherers, and all of the problems that come from founding a state on what we all know is swivel-eyed-loonery, then that's arguably a sensible aim.

A secular state, with room for palestinians and jews? Now you're talking. And that would be settled for. - But Zionists won't stand for that - and are using every weapon in their arsenal - including conflating antisemitism with anti-zionism and all the bullshit that comes from that.

He also never really got a grip on the Labour antisemitism issue once it started to roll, he did what he has done during the brexit debate in essence he kept his head down and hid hoping no one would dig up parts of his past that clearly weaken him on the subject.

He absolutely dealt with it badly. But 250 cases out of 500,000 probably put him on the wrong foot, also given that the party didn't have the infrastructure to deal with the massive increase in the absolute number of cases that happens when your membership jumps that high that quickly.

But a grip is being taken, the party is dealing with it. But it'll never leave the news - and Margaret Hodge showed her hand this weekend by saying that it's not antisemitism, or the IHRA definition, or anything else - the aim is removing Jeremy Corbyn by whatever means necessary.

The narrative is fundamentally dishonest on all fronts.

 

[DaGaffer]

Oh..right..must tell Crimea that.
They have every desire to slowly pinch back ex USSR countries by any method possible, a British pacifist leader would be perfect for them.

Crimea where an entire Russian army that was already there took control of territory they already had? Very impressive. Try looking at the places they’ve actually invaded and what a pig’s ear they’ve made of it, and in every case against vastly weaker opposition using Russia’s own tactics and equipment.

European NATO on its own spends four times as much as the Russians on defence. And while Russia has far more nukes than the British or French, either nation has enough to make the only parts of Russia that matter (Moscow-St.Petersberg) a smoking ruin. So even if Corbyn sat on his hands, the French are a different story.

I have no time for Corbyn, I think he would be a horrific PM because he has no grip on reality, although he’s hardly alone there, but frankly his softness on defence is the least of the reasons not to give him power

 

[DaGaffer]

I dislike both these tropes. They're so often repeated there's an assumption of truth where no absolute version exists - and a dismissal of the complexity of a complex situation.

1) On "terrorists": If you're going to stand shoulder to shoulder with any Palestinian activists, you're going to stand shoulder to shoulder with someone that's being labelled a terrorist from one source or another. It can't be avoided.

Aside from the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" stance that people used to acknowledge when discussing the entrenched positions of enemies - it's interesting to note that when any of the the establishment figures stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Benjamin Netanyahu, the president of an institutionally racist apartheid country that is only avoiding prosecution for regular war-crimes against its captive prisoner population, is because the west is turning a blind eye to Israeli terrorism, headed by him.

Both sides are guilty of "terrorism" - if you must call it that.

2) Israeli/Jews completely destroyed? I've no doubt that some of the population would feel that way (Job would love that with all black people and muslims). But no, that's not an adult appraisal of the situation. It's infantilising the situation into jingoistic nonsense.

It's about the state of Israel being for Jews being destroyed. Zionism being destroyed. And, unless you like the idea of a country being for a particular sect of loony god-botherers, and all of the problems that come from founding a state on what we all know is swivel-eyed-loonery, then that's arguably a sensible aim.

A secular state, with room for palestinians and jews? Now you're talking. And that would be settled for. - But Zionists won't stand for that - and are using every weapon in their arsenal - including conflating antisemitism with anti-zionism and all the bullshit that comes from that.



He absolutely dealt with it badly. But 250 cases out of 500,000 probably put him on the wrong foot, also given that the party didn't have the infrastructure to deal with the massive increase in the absolute number of cases that happens when your membership jumps that high that quickly.

But a grip is being taken, the party is dealing with it. But it'll never leave the news - and Margaret Hodge showed her hand this weekend by saying that it's not antisemitism, or the IHRA definition, or anything else - the aim is removing Jeremy Corbyn by whatever means necessary.

The narrative is fundamentally dishonest on all fronts.

There can never be a secular Israel; it’s a conversation that simply isn’t worth having. You either accept Israel as an ethnostate or you don’t accept Israel at all, because any “secular” state that occupied the territory we currently call Israel would become a Muslim state about a week after it was created. The Arab Spring showed us exactly what middle eastern Muslims will do with democracy if they get it. Pretending otherwise is just silly.

 

[Gwadien]

There can never be a secular Israel; it’s a conversation that simply isn’t worth having. You either accept Israel as an ethnostate or you don’t accept Israel at all, because any “secular” state that occupied the territory we currently call Israel would become a Muslim state about a week after it was created. The Arab Spring showed us exactly what middle eastern Muslims will do with democracy if they get it. Pretending otherwise is just silly.

The UN should have the power to enforce it though.

The UN should have the power to throw its weight about in all international issues, that's what it's there for.

 

[DaGaffer]

The UN should have the power to enforce it though.

The UN should have the power to throw its weight about in all international issues, that's what it's there for.

The UN doesn’t have the power to deal with matters internal to a country unless invited to do so;

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

The UN can huff and puff, but only gets involved if and when borders are violated.

 

[Gwadien]

The UN doesn’t have the power to deal with matters internal to a country unless invited to do so;



The UN can huff and puff, but only gets involved if and when borders are violated.

Settlements?

 

[Scouse]

The UK, US and the EU should get involved in this (especially as it's our fault) - enforcing a secular democracy in Israel, with any support of Israel contingent on exactly that.

No secular democracy - remove all aid, including military aid.

 

[Job]

The UN should have the power to enforce it though.

The UN should have the power to throw its weight about in all international issues, that's what it's there for.

Ha...thats funny.

 

[Moriath]

Israel radio apologises for playing Wagner

Heh

 

[fettoken]

"Divide the man from his art". At least he didn't force his views upon others, like jerking off in front of women in his production.

 

[Bodhi]

It might be a soundbite, but some random dude on Twitter has basically summed up British Politics perfectly.


View: https://twitter.com/bluebeancounter/status/1036881347216908288?s=19

 

[dysfunction]

So nobody really worth supporting then. Wonderful.
Just what you need in a time of crisis