Off Topic Politics Thread

[Beddy]

I don’t want to put words into people’s mouths, but it reads like Beddy is talking about generational racism; racism that wasn’t necessarily meant as a direct insult, but commonly used.

Now Beddy is even older than my Dad and it’s an expression I use about my Dad. He is getting better but still uses the odd phrase or expression that I have to point out to him, he shouldn’t really be saying. My wife is Chinese Jamaican and my best mate’s wife is Sri Lankan. Our parents went to the same school and they both still use expressions such as “being one of them” when talking to our wives! No insult meant, but a bit of a clumsy expression.

I must admit to doing the same.......my grandchildren will correct me when they ask and I talk about my friends. As does my wife occasionally.......and there has been the occasional gaff on here too I might Add............... (and not so much on the ancient please )

 

[ChilcoSaint]

You must log in or register to see media

 

[ChilcoSaint]

You must log in or register to see images

 

[TheSecondStain]

The fight back is just beginning:

You must log in or register to see media

 

[San Tejón]

The fight back is just beginning:

You must log in or register to see media

Hopefully common sense will prevail and an agreed temporary leader will be chosen.
This is far too important for pride to get in the way of preventing a no deal Brexit.
I would be happy for Corbyn to take the moral high ground and agree to step aside and allow everyone against the no deal to come together, because the long game for him is getting a General Election.

 

[benditlikeabanana]

Already given my views. That's the point of my post. You asked why people call Trump racist. I gave you several reasons why I think he is. You posted a YouTube propaganda piece as an answer. Can you not see that the point of a forum is to hear one another's views, not be told to listen to a random third-party's fifteen minute propaganda diatribe?

So, if you look back, you'll see listed reasons why I consider Trump to be racist. What are your opinions (not someone else's) on why I'm incorrect?

Oh, and I agree, "racist" is still one of the worst insults. It's awful that America has a president who is one.

Vin

My opinion is that Trump can not resist attacking anyone that attacks him, people will see the headlines once they have been sliced and diced by the press. People nowadays only read the headlines of a story or they read totally biased Twitter reports. Trump takes a swipe at the squad, and the press goes into meltdown, it's Trump playing the press, they report that Trump attacks 4 women of colour, yet Trump attacks them because they were attacking him, also to keep them as front and center as the extreme left face of the party, and also because biden, trumps main contender had a rally that night where he would outline his welfare policy, yet this was not covered by the press because they were dancing to trumps tune and reporting only on his racist attack on the squad.
In brief, Trump can be called many things and I would not disagree with you, but I think Trump would attack anyone the same regardless of race or sex, which is why I do not see him as racist

 

[San Tejón]

Irony

You must log in or register to see images

 

[San Tejón]

You must log in or register to see images

 

[benditlikeabanana]

No, this is not what is happening at all. Trump isn't just telling off-color jokes to the wrong audience. When he calls immigrants rapists and invaders and KKK members "good people" it's not a joke, and nor is taken that way by anyone. People know exactly what he means, and in fact that is exactly why they are voting for him. Same with UKIP, etc.

It's racist, and it would have been racist 25 years ago, 30 years ago, 100 years ago. The only reason it wouldn't have been as big a deal back then is because everyone was racist.

Selective editing, he did not call immigrants rapists and invaders, he did not call kkk very fine people. Criticise by all means, but get them right

 

[ChilcoSaint]

This is an interesting legal theory, that unless Parliament specifically passes an Act to leave the EU either with or without a deal we won’t actually leave:

https://www.foundrychambers.com/on-...icle-50-and-the-legality-of-a-no-deal-brexit/

 

[TheSecondStain]

This is an interesting legal theory, that unless Parliament specifically passes an Act to leave the EU either with or without a deal we won’t actually leave:

https://www.foundrychambers.com/on-...icle-50-and-the-legality-of-a-no-deal-brexit/

Thanks for posting this. I was in conversation with a Leaver who inform me this evening that whatever we do now, effectively we have already left the EU. I said that he was completely misinformed, but [I believe] he referred to this article, and I was almost 95% sure he had it completely wrong. I think he got the information second-hand, instead of reading it for himself. So, the gist of the article is not that we have to prevent ourselves from leaving, but have to pass an act of Parliament to actually leave, and this article suggests that if we don't even do that we cannot leave. Well, I certainly hope that's true. That also actually ties in with chit-chat amongst political commentators like Michael Portillo who, although he wants the UK to leave the EU, he doesn't believe it will be enacted, even by the 31st October 2019. He thinks the UK will limp on.

 

[I Sorry I Ruined The Party]

Selective editing, he did not call immigrants rapists and invaders, he did not call kkk very fine people. Criticise by all means, but get them right

LMAO at your sudden insistence on accuracy and truth.

 

[fatletiss]

Hopefully common sense will prevail and an agreed temporary leader will be chosen.
This is far too important for pride to get in the way of preventing a no deal Brexit.
I would be happy for Corbyn to take the moral high ground and agree to step aside and allow everyone against the no deal to come together, because the long game for him is getting a General Election.

St B are you saying Corbyn should step aside, because he’s not electable, force a general election under a different leader and then make him leader again after that election?

 

[San Tejón]

St B are you saying Corbyn should step aside, because he’s not electable, force a general election under a different leader and then make him leader again after that election?

No, just suggesting that he consider stepping aside from being the temporary leader of parliament, if his insistence on being it ruins the chances of getting a no confidence vote through.
He could stay as leader of the Labour Party but then be able to rightly claim that he put the good of the country ahead of personal ambition.
This plus putting a new referendum in the manifesto, giving Remain as an option, could win back some of those who have moved to the Lib Dem’s, when the general election is called.

 

[Archers Road]

St B are you saying Corbyn should step aside, because he’s not electable, force a general election under a different leader and then make him leader again after that election?

Daft isn’t it?

He’s leader of Her Majesty’s opposition, why should he step aside when his intention as head of an interim government is to revoke A50 and immediately call a General Election?

Jo Swinson is the one putting personal and party ambition before the National Interest, not Corbyn. Woman’s a fraud.

 

[Farked19]

My mate represented the town that I live in for thirteen years as an MP. He was centre left. He told me last week that speaking to his ex colleagues a good 50% do not support Corbyn. I think he secretly wants a No Deal to cash in on the ensuing chaos.

 

[Archers Road]

My mate represented the town that I live in for thirteen years as an MP. He was centre left. He told me last week that speaking to his ex colleagues a good 50% do not support Corbyn. I think he secretly wants a No Deal to cash in on the ensuing chaos.

Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party not once, but twice, by an overwhelming majority of the membership (who have always been to the left of most MPs). So I would respectfully suggest that your mate, while he has every right to his own opinion, should speak for himself and not for an imaginary 50% of, well, what sample exactly?

Your last sentence, I would suggest, is based entirely on prejudice and is completely without foundation. Corbyn has always been lukewarm about the EU, but he has always been absolutely a man of his word. So to suggest he has some secret unspoken plan is nonsense.

 

[Farked19]

It's just that having lost half the Remainer vote to the LD's, mine included btw, he is heading for a drubbing at the next GE. I'm not necessarily against many of his policies but I do believe he is on course to wreck the party that I have worked for at every election since 1959.

 

[Archers Road]

It's just that having lost half the Remainer vote to the LD's, mine included btw, he is heading for a drubbing at the next GE. I'm not necessarily against many of his policies but I do believe he is on course to wreck the party that I have worked for at every election since 1959.

Labour needs to work hard to win those votes back, granted. But as for Corbyn, he is far from being the far left extremist the press portrays him as. He’s a democratic Socialist, like most Labour members, and his views are far more in tune with most of the grassroots than Blair’s ever were.

When people actually get to hear him talk, undiluted by the relentlessly biased media , they tend to recognise that he talks a lot of sense.

 

[Onionman]

My opinion is that Trump can not resist attacking anyone that attacks him, people will see the headlines once they have been sliced and diced by the press. People nowadays only read the headlines of a story or they read totally biased Twitter reports. Trump takes a swipe at the squad, and the press goes into meltdown, it's Trump playing the press, they report that Trump attacks 4 women of colour, yet Trump attacks them because they were attacking him, also to keep them as front and center as the extreme left face of the party, and also because biden, trumps main contender had a rally that night where he would outline his welfare policy, yet this was not covered by the press because they were dancing to trumps tune and reporting only on his racist attack on the squad.
In brief, Trump can be called many things and I would not disagree with you, but I think Trump would attack anyone the same regardless of race or sex, which is why I do not see him as racist

Oh, for heaven's sake. Yes, of course he can react to attacks. But telling four women (who happen not to be white) the following [EXACT QUOTE, COPIED AND PASTED FROM HIS TWITTER FEED]:

"So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly......
....and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how....
....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!"

is racist. Nothing less. Three of them "originally came from countries" that are...er... the United States. He's literally calling them foreign because their skin colour is different from his. Tell me why telling people who are not white but are American citizens to "go home" [to another country] is NOT racist.

I know you'd eat a plate of **** if you were told it came from Donald Trump's arsehole so I don't expect agreement but on this you're plain wrong.

Vin