Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I've noticed a new debating tactic coming to the fore over the past few days.
When Person A makes a comment about something - positive or negative - then Person B, who feels the other way, doesn't address the point being made by Person A. Instead, Person B points out something else, possibly similar, that Person A hasn't criticised, and calls them a hypocrite for not mentioning that - as if it excuses the original point.
It's a new version of the "dead cat on the table" tactic and doesn't answer anything. You're just avoiding dealing with it.
If Trump really is (and I'm not sure he is, TBH) running a "Muslims" ban - then asking why someone isn't also criticising the fact Arab countries don't admit Israelis or people who've visited Israel has nothing to do with what Trump is doing. So why not just discuss what Trump is doing AND introduce the Israeli issue?
For me - banning people because they are Muslim is wrong. Banning people because there is evidence they might put the US in danger is sensible. Pretending to your voters that it is just because they are Muslims is wrong. Banning Israelis from visiting Arab countries is equally wrong. Building Israeli homes on Palestinian land because you have the tanks and they don't is also wrong.
When Person A makes a comment about something - positive or negative - then Person B, who feels the other way, doesn't address the point being made by Person A. Instead, Person B points out something else, possibly similar, that Person A hasn't criticised, and calls them a hypocrite for not mentioning that - as if it excuses the original point.
It's a new version of the "dead cat on the table" tactic and doesn't answer anything. You're just avoiding dealing with it.
If Trump really is (and I'm not sure he is, TBH) running a "Muslims" ban - then asking why someone isn't also criticising the fact Arab countries don't admit Israelis or people who've visited Israel has nothing to do with what Trump is doing. So why not just discuss what Trump is doing AND introduce the Israeli issue?
For me - banning people because they are Muslim is wrong. Banning people because there is evidence they might put the US in danger is sensible. Pretending to your voters that it is just because they are Muslims is wrong. Banning Israelis from visiting Arab countries is equally wrong. Building Israeli homes on Palestinian land because you have the tanks and they don't is also wrong.
It is completely hypocritical to have a hissy fit over Trump visiting this Country and addressing Parliament, whilst welcoming/not complaining about visiting leaders from Countries who have committed far worse deeds than Trump to date. Some on the left are even comparing Trump's immigration ban (it's not a Muslim Ban) to the holocaust. This is hysterical nonsense.
I don't like Trump, but I recognise that this Country needs to deal with him, particularly now we are leaving the EU and take advantage of the fact that the idiot seems to really like Britain. It is entirely relevant to show the hypocrisy in people's comments imo.
I totally agree with you about the building of Israeli homes on the West Bank, although it is not as simple as that one issue and there is fault on both sides.
Well said sir. A balanced view which I agree with and applaud. I have also noticed that they never answer the point. Instead they attack collectively and in defence of their so-called honour by adopting a mass persecution complex because someone has dared to point out the flaws or even immorality in the position they have adopted. For such posturing warriors, time they all grew a pair. If they are happy to stop calling others names, 'enemy of the people', 'traitor' 'people like us who are to blame for [every ill in society]' hypocrite, intolerant leftie, and the absolutely ridiculous 'yoghurt knitter', being examples which spring to mind. I'm sure we'll all feel able to stop defending ourselves. Instead of putting us all into boxes of undesirables, they might actually like to try to engage in addressing the rights and wrongs of the positions they have adopted. This forum might then return to a sensible and more tolerant opportunity to discuss matters of public interest.
It would actually be nice if once in a while they could acknowledge that the points made on the other side may have some merit but instead whenever you press for an answer or justification for some bit of cobblers they have put forward, all you get are insults and cries that you are picking on them. That is not a reason for me or anyone else who is sick to death of reading these attacks followed by whines and howls of protest to stop.
If I've said anything which is wrong or inappropriate, no doubt the Mods will let me know. Until then I will continue and if they are offended that much by what I say they know what to do to prevent themselves having to endure it.
Trump is obviously an unpleasant individual, laughing at spastics and grabbing women by the pussy, is evidence enough of this. But it's his office on the state visit, and we should respect that. We've had state visits from leaders the government previously labelled terrorists like Mugabe, Mandela and Shamir (not comparing those three, just the label) because it's the office that gets the welcome.
Yes, I believe I am responsible for 'intolerant leftie' in response to your 'you lot' comment that somehow implied that, had we been around in the 1930s, we would have acted as appeasers for the Nazis.
Of course, I wasn't around in the 1930s, but can only but hope that I would've sided with Churchill during his 'Gathering Storm' era. I like to think I'd be part of the 'you lot' advocating re-arming and taking other strong measures to oppose the growing Hitler threat.
Perhaps the otherwise odious Trump believes he's taking appropriate action to protect the US people from the current perceived threats, albeit in a cack-handed and misguided manner?
Or perhaps he's just a ****.
More rubbish spouted from me.
More later.
Probably.
Last edited:
What I have noticed more and more is the 'tyranny of the majority' (or minority in the case of Trump supporters), whereby the winners - be they Brexit supporters here or Trump voters in the US - will react with dismissive aggression towards any losing voices raised in criticism of the winners. This of course is often accompanied by derogatory terms such as Remoaners, Snowflakes (or even the pathetic 'yoghurt knitters'). 'You lost, get over it' is the familiar refrain. As a 'loser' in the Brexit referendum, I reluctantly accept that we must leave the European Union. I shall do my best to get over it. There is no point in anyone continuing to argue about how democratic or otherwise the EU is - that ship has sailed. I will not, however, stop speaking out against what I consider to be the disastrous 'hard Brexit' course that our government is insisting upon, and for which they have no mandate.
Last edited:
Any keen student of etymology will realise that Hard Brexit also known as Brexit Hard soon becomes Brex't'ard. You're welcome.
Some of that post was fine and I agree with you.
The problem I have Is the same lot that seems to complain and moan about every bit of positive news and then come out later on some sort of moral high ground. Dippers post touched on it.
1. The name 'Remoaners' was created by the press due to the amount of moaning coming out of the 'remain' camp who couldn't accept a democratic result. That's what it was, democratic. We voted to leave so get on with it. However, what I objected to was being called "uneducated, racist, thick and Brextard (which means ******)". When you compare the name calling I think 'Remoaners' and 'yoghurt knitters' seems quite tame.
2. Every person has the right to voice their views and they should. But what saddens me is when we have some positive news about the economy and we still get the same people complaining. It's as if they want Brexit to fail!
This is not good because it means we will fail as a country.
3. As for the word 'mandate' it is yet again another excuse to try and derail negotiations or to say it's not legitimate.
I have said before, where was Blair's mandate to take us into an illegal war? I didn't vote for that? Or the mandates to sign our country away to Brussels in the past? I didn't vote for that either. A mandate is just an excuse. You could say in life things change and you need to adapt. That doesn't mean we should go to the polls every time things change.
I will accept that Brexit is a major change and as a country, we need to get the best result. Do I think she should go to the polls? No, because we have something more important than watching Labour get annihilated.
4. May has been given a very difficult task and needs to get on with it. I will support her and if I think she is doing something underhanded or against what I believe is good for the country, I will speak out. At the moment I think she is doing okay. She has been left a mess and it needs a cool head to sort. Can you imagine comrade Corbyn trying to sort this?
5. Finally, I want to set the record straight re Trump. I have always stated on here that I think he is a 'dick'. When he announced the tempory ban I was one of the first on here to say it was rash, ill-advised. I am not 'obsessed' with him but I feel that he is not Hitler/Stalin. I believe he gets too much criticism/hate from people. Most of this hate is driven by the press.
Agree about all the terms of abuse flying about.
The problem with going for soft Brexit is that we have to submit to uncontrolled EU immigration, which is what a large number of Brexit voter wanted to remove. We also have to submit to the various EU institutions including the European Court, although, as non-members of the EU, we will have absolutely no say in the laws imposed on us.
It therefore seems to me that Soft Brexit is simply the worst of all worlds. Please persuade me why that isn't so, Strolls. I promise to keep an open mind.
I'm unlikely to persuade you Goldie, because we have different priorities. I would concede that most Leave voters did so because of concerns over immigration, but, when asked, many also said that being worse off was not a price worth paying. Leaving the Single Market will make us all worse off it seems to me, with rising prices and higher unemployment. We may reduce immigration, but only as a result of shrinking the economy. There were many shades of opinion that went into the vote to Leave, and I think the government is wrong to presume that Hard Brexit was the 'will of the people'.