Turn on thread page Beta

How can Labourites vote for someone who has consorted with the far-right? watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Dictator)
    Popular legitimacy is BS. The mob does not confer legitimacy.
    When you say the mob you mean the electorate? Legitimacy in politics is almost purely subjective. Democracy is the best form of determining legitimacy. If we don't define it by that what should we define it by?

    I imagine your idea of legitimacy is what ever you agree with.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Dictator)
    Yep, that's how North Korea remained in existence, how the Vietnam War was lost after being won, how Iraq was thrown to the dogs, how Syria has been thrown to the dogs, how Iran became a clerical fascist dictatorship.

    You are incredibly naive.
    It became worse due to western aggresiveness.
    The vietnam war should never have happened.
    Iraq was thrown to the dogs by war.
    Syria: which side should we have supported?
    I thought you liked dictatorships?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    It became worse due to western aggresiveness.
    So fighting aggression makes us the aggressors. Lol.

    (Original post by United1892)
    The vietnam war should never have happened.
    Iraq was thrown to the dogs by war.
    Syria: which side should we have supported?
    I thought you liked dictatorships?
    The Vietnam War was perfectly justified in crushing communism and stopping the expansion of Communist China, which would have left the USA in a stronger position to negotiate with them as they eventually did under Nixon in the 70s. The United States won the war, then pulled out due to pressure from the Marxist intelligentsia who were doing everything in their power to sabotage the righteous efforts of Western countries against communism. You would no doubt have been one of them.

    Iraq was thrown to the dogs by US after we withdrew and gave power to sectarian killers instead of simply keeping the country under effective occupation and governing it as a colony, thereby civilising its people and bringing justice, peace and liberty.

    As for Syria, if we had intervened in it earlier, perhaps we wouldn't see streams of refugees invading our borders. A simple invasion force (yes, boots on the ground) to remove Assad and colonise Syria would have solved the problem.

    I do not like or hate dictatorships per se, unless I am the dictator
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Dictator)
    So fighting aggression makes us the aggressors. Lol.
    Well when there was no real aggression yes.

    The Vietnam War was perfectly justified in crushing communism and stopping the expansion of Communist China, which would have left the USA in a stronger position to negotiate with them as they eventually did under Nixon in the 70s. The United States won the war, then pulled out due to pressure from the Marxist intelligentsia who were doing everything in their power to sabotage the righteous efforts of Western countries against communism. You would no doubt have been one of them.
    'the marxist intelligentsia' god. Its not our place to intervene in countries purely due to ideology.

    Iraq was thrown to the dogs by US after we withdrew and gave power to sectarian killers instead of simply keeping the country under effective occupation and governing it as a colony, thereby civilising its people and bringing justice, peace and liberty.
    you like occupying places.

    As for Syria, if we had intervened in it earlier, perhaps we wouldn't see streams of refugees invading our borders. A simple invasion force (yes, boots on the ground) to remove Assad and colonise Syria would have solved the problem.

    I do not like or hate dictatorships per se, unless I am the dictator
    and colonionising them.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I think you lot underestimate Jeremy Corbyn's when it comes to dealing with War. Let me make this clear to you. He is all about peace when there are opportunities for dialogue but when there is no dialogue and just pure persecution a different Jeremy Corbyn appears.

    Not many of you have caught onto his anger traits but when people talk over him he explodes and doesn't tolerate journalist spin tactics. He also has been caught saying he will break the law if the law gets in the way of Socialist progress.

    You might think Mr Corbyn is some softy mamby pamby chap but I assure you he has a much darker aggressive side which the class of capital really don't want to see because he won't mess about. In Corbyns younger days he use to be extremely aggressive.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Nevertheless, he apparently puts gay rights, and other minority issues, below pleasing his religious friends. A proponent of gay rights would never give a platform to or associate with an extreme homophobe unless absolutely necessary.
    You're going to have to define 'give a platform' and 'absolutely necessary'.

    Imo Burnham has more questions to answer with regards to LGBT rights. And I like Burnham.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You're going to have to define 'give a platform' and 'absolutely necessary'.
    Inviting someone to speak in Parliament alongside you clearly gives a platform, if not an air of legitimacy to their views.

    Absolutely necessary would be Cameron having to play diplomacy with someone like the King of Saudi Arabia, whereas Corbyn did not have to invite some commentator from Belgium with such views to speak with him in Parliament.

    Imo Burnham has more questions to answer with regards to LGBT rights. And I like Burnham.
    Aren't Burnham's based on religious issues and his Catholic background?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Inviting someone to speak in Parliament alongside you clearly gives a platform, if not an air of legitimacy to their views.

    Absolutely necessary would be Cameron having to play diplomacy with someone like the King of Saudi Arabia, whereas Corbyn did not have to invite some commentator from Belgium with such views to speak with him in Parliament.


    Aren't Burnham's based on religious issues and his Catholic background?
    I don't think it legitimises their views - unless he invited them to give a speech on how much they hate gay people. I haven't read the speeches, I don't know.

    Yes they are.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Idealistic nonsense from the OP.

    Reagan, Thatcher worked with who they needed to work with - it's how international politics works.

    I'm sure Pinochet, PW Botha etc were all nice rainbow loving peace hippies when we were dealing with them. Heck we supplied Saddam with arms for years to keep Khomenei at bay and when it looked like the Communists were going to sweep in to the Middle East via Afghanistan we armed Islamic mujahedeen, the same type who later became the Taleban.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Idealistic nonsense from the OP.

    Reagan, Thatcher worked with who they needed to work with - it's how international politics works.

    I'm sure Pinochet, PW Botha etc were all nice rainbow loving peace hippies when we were dealing with them. Heck we supplied Saddam with arms for years to keep Khomenei at bay and when it looked like the Communists were going to sweep in to the Middle East via Afghanistan we armed Islamic mujahedeen, the same type who later became the Taleban.
    How does Corbyn 'need' to work with a political commentator from Belgium?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    People on the left or right of the consenus always get smeared for associations. People in the middle like Blair get away with it, no-one mentions their cosy relationship with Gaddafi or the Saudi Arabians. I'm disappointed you peddle this populist tripe Comstock, thought you were a bit more intelligent.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    People on the left or right of the consenus always get smeared for associations. People in the middle like Blair get away with it, no-one mentions their cosy relationship with Gaddafi or the Saudi Arabians. I'm disappointed you peddle this populist tripe Comstock, thought you were a bit more intelligent.
    People bring the Gaddafi thing up against Blair all the time!

    In fairness to Blair, he got Gaddafi to abandon his nuclear ambitions and end his active hostility to the West which was better for our security. Gaddafi was still Gaddafi in Libya, but moving closer to him was a sensible decision for UK security.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    Well when there was no real aggression yes.

    'the marxist intelligentsia' god. Its not our place to intervene in countries purely due to ideology.

    you like occupying places.



    and colonionising them.
    Yes there was aggression. North Korea invaded South Korea, North Vietnam aggressed against South Vietnam, Iraq invaded Iran and Kuwait, Libya invaded Chad and Egypt...

    Ofc it is in our place to attack countries that are a threat to us and dispose of their regimes.

    Yes, I do.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    People bring the Gaddafi thing up against Blair all the time!

    In fairness to Blair, he got Gaddafi to abandon his nuclear ambitions and end his active hostility to the West which was better for our security. Gaddafi was still Gaddafi in Libya, but moving closer to him was a sensible decision for UK security.
    That wasn't my point-you have to talk to disreputable people, show them courtesies for the sake of negotiations and all-as you say Blair did this, I wouldn't have a problem with this and what he achieved, if there wasn't a huge double standard in the way it's portrayed when the likes of Corbyn, Galloway(or on the right Farage) does exactly the same thing at negotiations. Journalism should have a duty to objectivity, not act like a propaganda arm of mainstream politics. It makes me think that a lot of journalists have arrangements or relationships with establishment that are too close, or at least are not performing their job in a way that is good enough for this country, after all we like to place ourselves as better than American news which is slanging and propaganda.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think you can hold it against someone that they shared a platform with someone with distasteful views.
    I mean were Baroness Warsi, Jack Straw and David Dimbleby wrong to go on Question Time when Nick Griffin was on it? Does it make them racist or racist sympathizers? Does it mean they accept Holocaust denial?

    They all shared a platform with a far right, racist Holocaust denier does this mean they supported or sympathized with his views?
    No, clearly not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I don't think you can hold it against someone that they shared a platform with someone with distasteful views.
    I mean were Baroness Warsi, Jack Straw and David Dimbleby wrong to go on Question Time when Nick Griffin was on it? Does it make them racist or racist sympathizers? Does it mean they accept Holocaust denial?

    They all shared a platform with a far right, racist Holocaust denier does this mean they supported or sympathized with his views?
    No, clearly not.
    The difference being: did they invite him? Did they refer to him as their 'friend'?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 13, 2015
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.