Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Corbyn wins again!

Scroll to see replies

Like an abusive, vitriolic, intimidating group supported by the leader and around 6 in 10 Labour members threatening to deselect MPs who don't get down and worship the Blessed Jeremy?

So you have heard form 330,00 members who are all abusive, and all back reselection?

Like what? Can you name any?

1. Attacking Corbyn publicly and working to undermine his leadership from day one. 2.Blaming him for Brexit, when Cameron called the referendum, and Alan johnson was running the Remain campaign. 3.Resigning on mass an on the media. 4.Calling for a vote of not confidence, when a straightforward leadership challenge was the democratic option available. 5.Not challenging him on policy, simply on vague opinions such as leadership and unelectability.

The dirtyest of dirty tricks in this campaign was from Corbyn's office

You seem to be ignoring that he didn't start the whole mess. It is the victim that gets attacked not the bully.

No, he claimed that the PLP needs to "get behind the members", as if all members support him when in fact almost 200,000 of them oppose him.

I think he was referring to those that voted him in. The others did not necessarily oppose him, they just preferred Owen Smith.

Reply 181

Aliccam

Original post by viffer

Spoiler

Got nothing? Are you one of those who can trash, but has nothing better to offer?

Reply 182

viffer

Original post by Aliccam

Got nothing? Are you one of those who can trash, but has nothing better to offer?

Which bit of the post below doesn't look like an opinion? It makes a hell of a lot more sense and much more plausible/probable than your deluded contributions.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=67803452&t=4334662#post67803452

Reply 183

Aliccam

Original post by AlexanderHam

You really are struggling to land a blow. You are desperately delusional if you think Corbyn's support for terrorists, his business deals with homophobic killers and his friendships with anti-semites is "obscure".

Obviously you do not have a wide circle of friends and acquiantances and so you aren't exposed to the views of ordinary people. Ordinary people do not like terrorist sympathisers, they do not like politicians who do deals with murderous foreign governments to enrich themselves.

Like most Corbynites, you are utterly clueless about the views and inclinations of ordinary people. I mean, you people think Corbyn is really popular when in fact he's the most unpopular opposition leader since polling began. People find him to be an incompetent boob at best, and a despicable, immoral and corrupt man at worst. In both cases he is viewed as a danger to national security.

If you think that a politician who has supported this country's enemies, who cheered on the IRA while the killed innocent people, will enjoy great popularity and get elected then you have detached yourself from reality completely, in favour of a childish fantasy world in which somehow Corbyn will win the election, the people will rejoice and the bad guys will be defeated. I can perceive no profit in engaging with someone whose perception of reality is tenuous at best and completely coloured by their childish biases and vain delusions.

You seem to be a very angry person, very insulting and somewhat biased yourself. I am not basing my opinion on my own thoughts, just observing that even the media, who are mostly against Corbyn, have given up mentioning the things you feel are so damning.

Reply 184

Aliccam

Original post by AlexanderHam

How were Catholics oppressed by the central UK government? Your "analysis" is not only simplification, it is a shallow, fact-free perception that has no basis in reality and tells us that you've probably never read a single book about the history of religious minority emancipation in the UK.

If you rely on books written by the 'Brits' you are not getting the entire picture.

A large majority of catholic nationalists supported the non-violent SDLP, not the violent IRA.

They were probably supporting both.

From the way you write and the things you write, it suggests to me that you'd probably never even heard of the SDLP before I typed it just then. Your perception of the Northern Irish situation is based on just little opinions you've heard here and there, not serious personal research.

Don't assume you know what I know or have read. Your version seems to suggest that a random bunch of Catholics in Northern Ireland simply decided to attack anyone they felt they didn't like, for many years, for no reason whatsoever.

Reply 185

Yoloinator

Labour has been infiltrated by Trotskyists nowadays and I don't agree with communists so good bye Labour, hello Tory. Best of a bad bunch.

Reply 186

Aliccam

Original post by viffer

It is a rant without substance, other than that they knew they would loose, because Corbyn on his own had more support than they could collectively muster. The cult references are just unfounded insults.

Reply 187

viffer

Original post by Aliccam

Errrrrrrrr, if you say so .....

Reply 188

Aliccam

Original post by viffer

Errrrrrrrr, if you say so .....

I think it is you who are saying so. You are the one saying they are a cult, Have you been to any Corbyn rallies? Have you spoken to lots of Corbyn supporters? or are you just following the right wing media slurs.

Reply 189

AlexanderHam

Original post by Aliccam

If you rely on books written by the 'Brits' you are not getting the entire picture.

So you're not going to substantiate your bizarre claim that the UK central government was oppressing catholics as late as 1969?

They were probably supporting both.

You are totally confused; a function of your ignorance on this subject and inability to think intelligently. The SDLP and IRA were fundamentally distinct and competing movements.

Anyway, it's clear you are utterly clueless on this subject. I will not further engage with you until you provide a clear answer for why you are claiming the UK government was oppressing the catholics. If you don't, you have lost all credibility

Reply 190

Aliccam

Original post by AlexanderHam

So you're not going to substantiate your bizarre claim that the UK central government was oppressing catholics as late as 1969?

They were not so much doing it directly, but allowing discrimination by the dominant Protestant community to continue. I use the two religious titles loosely as this had nothing to do with religious belief but was sectarianism.

You are totally confused; a function of your ignorance on this subject and inability to think intelligently. The SDLP and IRA were fundamentally distinct and competing movements.

The Movements themselves were competing, their supporters, that is the public who voted for them or Sinn Fein not necessarily. Many saw the SDLP as their only voice at Westminster and the IRA as the action against Westminster and the UDA. The Catholic community whilst not openly supporting the IRA or the violence were generally for a united Ireland and against rule from Westminster.

Reply 191

Good bloke

Original post by Aliccam

They were not so much doing it directly, but allowing discrimination by the dominant Protestant community to continue.

You seem to be unaware that the UK government far from tolerating discrimination by protestants, sent the army into NI specifically to protect the RCs from protestant abuse.

Reply 192

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Good bloke

You seem to be unaware that the UK government far from tolerating discrimination by protestants, sent the army into NI specifically to protect the RCs from protestant abuse.

That was the original intention, but it didn't stay like that, for a range of reasons. One of those reasons was that right wing officers and elements within the army, for their own (religious or sectarian) reasons, behaved very badly towards Catholics from the start. This wasn't helped by deeply bigoted ministers and generals back in London, who whilst ostensibly claiming it was a peace keeping force, in private had an attitude of 'it's all the fault of the paddy's' etc and who were determined to enforce the Ulster Unionist political position notwithstanding that much of the original violence came from that quarter.

Reply 193

Aliccam

Original post by Good bloke

You seem to be unaware that the UK government far from tolerating discrimination by protestants, sent the army into NI specifically to protect the RCs from protestant abuse.

That was the reason they gave.

Reply 194

Good bloke

Original post by Aliccam

That was the reason they gave.

They were sent in response to demands by Bernadette Devlin (a republican politician) that they be sent. They protected the RCs from protestant mobs and were welcomed by the RCs.

This describes it reasonably well, and you, as a leftie, can hardly argue with it as a source:

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3678

Reply 195

Aliccam

Original post by Good bloke

Thanks for posting this as my main point in arguing with AlexanderHam was his very simplified view of the troubles as British good IRA bad, which is using to attack Corbyn. Devlin may have been the last straw which forced Westminster to act, but I am sure that the real reason was to stop things getting even further out of hand. The article although a good record, does kind of 'tidy' up what was a horrible mess of bigotry, violence and oppression from all sides involved.
AlexanderHam's criticism of Corbyn's attempts to help a settlement by having discussions with Sinn Fein and trying to include their case, as being a collusion with terrorists is a distortion of his intention to help bring a peaceful settlement and a united Ireland, which would have been a better result than the patchover compromise that we still have today.