The green party broadcast is hilarious. Watch

Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#41
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#41
Oh, and for political balance, the equally hilarious Bennet car crash interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhWvogL9dc
0
reply
troubadour.
Badges: 18
#42
Report 2 years ago
#42
(Original post by AlmightyJesus)
how was the theresa may part "accurate"? in this country we don't have a policy of kicking immigrants out for "not having enough money". they are entitled to benefits just like domestic nationals are.
:toofunny:

Migrants from most countries aren't (there's usually a visa condition called 'no recourse to public funds', which also bars young people from other countries from getting student loans). EU migrants are the exception, not the rule.
reply
Nightwing_
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#43
Report 2 years ago
#43
(Original post by AlmightyJesus)
I assumed that was if we left the EU - surely it's reasonable to assume that the EU's freedom of movement principle wouldn't allow for a policy like this? how not?
It is not if we leave the EU, but yes it could not apply to EU workers. But there are plenty of non EU workers in our hospitals, schools etc. that earn nowhere near £35000
0
reply
tengentoppa
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#44
Report 2 years ago
#44
(Original post by Nightwing_)
Unfortunately I won't be able to give a detailed response to every post as it's fairly time consuming.

But there are several countries that are trialling a national income right now with positive results, just because something is new doesn't necessarily mean bad.
We are services-centric economic system, with a pre-eminent financial servies sector with high levels of migration and a heterogenous population.
This makes the UK particularly unsuited to a social democratic model, and increasing immigration would further exacerbate that. 280 billion pounds is a lot of money and this system risks disincentivising labour, not to mention costing is going to be made worse by the inevitable huge capital flight we would face due to punitive taxes.
This policy may have been workable in the 1960s, and they might work in certain small homogenous countries, but they certainly won't work here.
The only way this country can ever be truly sustainable and prevent crashes like we had/are currently in is to move away from this idea of constant growth, it will never work forever, it obviously can't work forever!!!
To mulitlaterally aim for a better management of resources is one thing, but unilaterally impoverishing ourselves will do nothing to stop the drive for constant growth. The instant we reduce our aggregate demand some other country will step in and prosper at our expense. A government's first duty is to its people, and impoverishing the people of the UK isn't in our interest.
See above for immigration.
You didn't address my specific point about immigration, that it cannot possibly work in tandem with a socialist country, which requires an allegiciance to the country in question and a static workforce.
There are plenty of things great about Britain and bad about foreign policies, but this is why I believe we are better working together rather than further segregation.
These are airy words, could you give a concrete example of what you mean for working together.
See above for armed forces.
I disagree with he Conservative cuts to the defence budgets as well,. The fact that the goverment are making a mistake with this does not mean that the Greens should promote it as well.
I don't really see why people hate foreign aid spending so much, but ok, I guess if you are strongly against this I can't really argue with you about it, but in reality we are talking about 0.3% of the budget.
0.7% of GNI is not a negligeable sum, particularly when it is funding African despots and rich nations like India. It's also the principle of it. It shows where green party priorities lie.
The view that they believe every Middle East problem is our fault is again a skewed view on your behalf. But yes you are correct in thinking that they rightly believe that the west's interference in the Middle East has undoubtedly added to the problems there.
1400 years of sectarian bloodshed would indicate the West is not the key reason for the problems there.
Also the current methods of tackling terrorism are disastrously unsuccessful, I think they are providing some interesting insights, alongside Jeremy Corbyn on how we might be able to change our foreign policies to approach from a different angle.
ISIS have yet to strike in the UK, so the security services are doing well from that standpoint, and ISIS are being pushed back, albeit largely by Russian and Syrian forces.

Corbyn is providing interesting insights? Like his terrific idea to back-channel with the deranged death-cult which would love nothing more than to kill everyone in this country. The idea that ISIS can somehow be appeased or negotiated with is beyond delusional.
As an example of what would happen if the Greens were in power, let's take the migrant crisis. Bennett would no doubt have taken Merkel's open-arms welcome approach, and given our lax immigration system and generous benefits millions of them would have come here.

As well as the huge financial burden, we would have enjoyed the cultural enrichment of mass sexual assaults and radical medieval Islam.

That naive geopolitical view lies at the heart of the problem with the Greens
2
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#45
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#45
(Original post by AlmightyJesus)
was the world richer during feudal times or during capitalism? was there as much personal liberty and happiness during feudalism? I don't understand why you'd say feudalism > capitalism unless this is a weird kind of joke
Please qualify what you mean by 'richer'?

If I was a religious nut I would say that there is far less happiness and liberty now. These things are all relative to the person and are generally determined by events beyond somebodys ability to control.

I'm saying feudalism/ capitalism because during feudalism people thought that that was the most natural and efficient mode of government (and at the time, it probably was) just like Capitalism was during the 20th century. I'm confidant that in a few hundred years time we'll look upon capitalism as we do feudalism now.




1) it's not a matter of physical force. it's a matter of not exploiting kids. for instance, a paedophile might be able to technically get a kid to consent to sex (in a literal sense) - but so what? it's still exploitation, isn't it? that's the issue here.
I think you have a slightly warped view of exploitation. You've said its not exploitation for parents to teach about morality where do yo7u draw the limit? Surely if they've been brought up by parents who support the green party are going to view the world in a crtain way, even if the parents are discrete about their views.
0
reply
username2387497
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#46
Report 2 years ago
#46
(Original post by Nightwing_)
You have no way heard that they want to ban cars. This is completely ridiculous and to be honest anyone that could possibly believe this is a complete idiot (sorry, I don't like to insult people, but SERIOUSLY!!!!). Where exactly did you hear this, because it would not be from a genuine source?

This is a major problem with this country people hear these little snippets and actually believe them and it actually influences their voting. If people actually did even a bit of research they would be so much better prepared to vote. I just seriously cannot believe what I hear people say. Even well educated people, I've heard them say the Greens want to ban all fishing or turn everyone vegan, this is simply NOT true. My hope is that as the Greens eventually do become more mainstream, which no one can deny is happening these ridiculous rumours will eventually be debunked and people that would otherwise vote for them might finally be ready to give them a shot.
Really dont apreciate being called an idiot! I never said i believed it, i just said i pd heard it before. And i heard it from people at college so it probably wasnt. Areliable source but there need need to go called people idiots for listening to things that people are ****ing saying, is there!!!!

Again i never ****ing said i belived it, its a totaly rediculous idea that will never be implemented.
It doesnt influence my voting. I never liked them from the start. I dont care if people want to save the enviroment, theres nothing wrong with it.
I hope they dont become mainstream, because theyre filled with people like you!
Imagine the country being ran by someone who cant read properly. Not gonna work.
0
reply
Nightwing_
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#47
Report 2 years ago
#47
(Original post by FireFreezer77)
Really dont apreciate being called an idiot! I never said i believed it, i just said i pd heard it before. And i heard it from people at college so it probably wasnt. Areliable source but there need need to go called people idiots for listening to things that people are ****ing saying, is there!!!!

Again i never ****ing said i belived it, its a totaly rediculous idea that will never be implemented.
It doesnt influence my voting. I never liked them from the start. I dont care if people want to save the enviroment, theres nothing wrong with it.
I hope they dont become mainstream, because theyre filled with people like you!
Imagine the country being ran by someone who cant read properly. Not gonna work.
Yes I know, and I don't like insulting people, hence my apology. However it is ridiculous incorrect rumour spreading like that that is in my opinion idiotic. I will say then that I do not know if you are or are not an idiot, however you definitely displayed idiotic behaviour.
0
reply
tengentoppa
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#48
Report 2 years ago
#48
(Original post by Davij038)
I don't think universal income is necessarily a bad idea, and I think there is some merit in there idea of reducing constant economic growth.
Copying what I said to an earlier reply:

On universal income;

We are a services-centric economic system, with a pre-eminent financial servies sector with high levels of migration and a heterogenous population.
This makes the UK particularly unsuited to a social democratic model, and increasing immigration would further exacerbate that. 280 billion pounds is a lot of money and this system risks disincentivising labour, not to mention costing is going to be made worse by the inevitable huge capital flight we would face due to punitive taxes.
This policy may have been workable in the 1960s, and they might work in certain small homogenous countries, but they certainly won't work here.

On reducing constant economic growth:

To mulitlaterally aim for a better management of resources is one thing, but unilaterally impoverishing ourselves will do nothing to stop the drive for constant growth. The instant we reduce our aggregate demand some other country will step in and prosper at our expense. A government's first duty is to its people, and impoverishing the people of the UK isn't in our interest.



On to your other points:



"Whilst they no doubt posses a great deal of the regressive left, I don't think that your portrayal is particularly fair- for instance they're against faith schools, forced marriage, FGM etc and support gay rights in the Arabic world."

And that is to their credit, but nonetheless they are naive in thinking anything other than military force can defeat ISIS, and their desire to welcome far more migrants from the middle east indicates they don't understand the cultural shock they will produce.

- They want to drastically cut the armed forces

"Meh, so did the Tories! I think they believe they can change the world for the better without resorting to force and see western intervention as not the best means of achieving this. This could be argued as naïve but I don't think its necessarily regressive."

I wasn't impressed with the Tory cuts either, but at least the Tory plan is to cut defence and have NATO fulfill our shortcomings. The Greens want to go it alone and be a peacekeeping force. One cannot be a global player without having some military clout to back you up. Given the Greens want to cut defence even more and scrap Trident, I don't see that happening.

- They want to increase foreign aid by 50%

"Depends on how its funded and where the money goes."

Agreed. But given their manifesto is uncosted and they've given no indications of reform, they appear to be failing on both counts.

- They want to legalise membership of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS. All those who went to join ISIS and partake in the killing and raping would be allowed to stroll back into the UK, no questions asked.

"Source? IIRC they wouldn't punish people for expressing support for terrorist groups [muh free speech] but I think the second sentence is false"

The Green party want to legalise membership of al-Qaeda or ISIS. It is therefore not a crime to go to Syria and join ISIS. To my knowledge, they would not then have committed an offence in the UK and could not, as British citizens, be denied entry. I may be wrong on this though, as there may be extraterritorial powers vis-a-vis terrorism.

Regardless, legalising membership fo ISIS is symbolically pretty despicable.
- They contend that any problem in the Middle East can be traceable to our intervention there

"This is definitely the worse part about them for me, although they are hardly alone in this. Indeed, they have very similar views to UKIP regarding intervention and Ukraine...."

Yes UKIP's stance is deplorable, I think this is an extension of UKIP's hatred of everything to do with the EU. Were the EU not involved I doubt they would object
0
reply
IFoundWonderland
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#49
Report 2 years ago
#49
That was hilarious lmfao.

The kids playing Johnson and Corbyn lolololol
0
reply
username2387497
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#50
Report 2 years ago
#50
(Original post by Nightwing_)
Yes I know, and I don't like insulting people, hence my apology. However it is ridiculous incorrect rumour spreading like that that is in my opinion idiotic. I will say then that I do not know if you are or are not an idiot, however you definitely displayed idiotic behaviour.
I dont like getting angry, but sometimes people make me angry and ive never done anything. Now ive realized i need to.
Im not idiotic, this is just my last 18 years of bottled up anger being unleashed at last.
Im being bullied at the moment at college and i dont really appreicate being idiotic for sharing something i overheard.
Its a ridiculous proposition, i know that.

I might apologize for being angry there. Somethings just make me really angry and im now deciding to fight back rather than letting it destroy me.
0
reply
Nightwing_
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#51
Report 2 years ago
#51
(Original post by FireFreezer77)
I dont like getting angry, but sometimes people make me angry and ive never done anything. Now ive realized i need to.
Im not idiotic, this is just my last 18 years of bottled up anger being unleashed at last.
Im being bullied at the moment at college and i dont really appreicate being idiotic for sharing something i overheard.
Its a ridiculous proposition, i know that.

I might apologize for being angry there. Somethings just make me really angry and im now deciding to fight back rather than letting it destroy me.
I'm sorry you feel so insulted.

Let me put it this way, Donald Trump recently tried to tell everyone that Mexican's were the ones "doing the ra*ing" in the US. If someone came up to you and said I heard that all the Mexican's are doing the rap*ng in the US, would you really think what an interesting point, or this guys an idiot?

Don't feel so insulted because I believe you made an idiotic comment and decided to tell you.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#52
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#52
(Original post by tengentoppa)
Copying what I said to an earlier reply:

On universal income;

We are a services-centric economic system, with a pre-eminent financial servies sector with high levels of migration and a heterogenous population.
This makes the UK particularly unsuited to a social democratic model, and increasing immigration would further exacerbate that. 280 billion pounds is a lot of money and this system risks disincentivising labour, not to mention costing is going to be made worse by the inevitable huge capital flight we would face due to punitive taxes.
This policy may have been workable in the 1960s, and they might work in certain small homogenous countries, but they certainly won't work here.

They would say that our reliance our reliance on financial services is a bad thing, and they may have a point.

IIRC they think that scrapping Trident would cover the cost? Increasing Automation is gradually making labour redundant.

I am against a completely open door immigration policy though.



On reducing constant economic growth:

To mulitlaterally aim for a better management of resources is one thing, but unilaterally impoverishing ourselves will do nothing to stop the drive for constant growth. The instant we reduce our aggregate demand some other country will step in and prosper at our expense. A government's first duty is to its people, and impoverishing the people of the UK isn't in our interest.
This could well be an ethical point for them, which I can sympathise with. This is the argument ukippers made about supplying arms to Saudi Arabia- which I oppose.




And that is to their credit, but nonetheless they are naive in thinking anything other than military force can defeat ISIS, and their desire to welcome far more migrants from the middle east indicates they don't understand the cultural shock they will produce.

I wasn't impressed with the Tory cuts either, but at least the Tory plan is to cut defence and have NATO fulfill our shortcomings. The Greens want to go it alone and be a peacekeeping force. One cannot be a global player without having some military clout to back you up. Given the Greens want to cut defence even more and scrap Trident, I don't see that happening.

Agreed. But given their manifesto is uncosted and they've given no indications of reform, they appear to be failing on both counts.

The Green party want to legalise membership of al-Qaeda or ISIS. It is therefore not a crime to go to Syria and join ISIS. To my knowledge, they would not then have committed an offence in the UK and could not, as British citizens, be denied entry. I may be wrong on this though, as there may be extraterritorial powers vis-a-vis terrorism.

Regardless, legalising membership fo ISIS is symbolically pretty despicable.

Yes UKIP's stance is deplorable, I think this is an extension of UKIP's hatred of everything to do with the EU. Were the EU not involved I doubt they would object

I agree with most of that, and that's enough for me not to support the green party (as well as other reasons)

That said:

I'm something of a trident-sceptic. I'm not particularly convinced we need a nuclear deterrent and it could be spent better e.g on military research.

I think we should leave NATO, or ideally Kick Turkey out
0
reply
Nightwing_
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#53
Report 2 years ago
#53
(Original post by FireFreezer77)
I dont like getting angry, but sometimes people make me angry and ive never done anything. Now ive realized i need to.
Im not idiotic, this is just my last 18 years of bottled up anger being unleashed at last.
Im being bullied at the moment at college and i dont really appreicate being idiotic for sharing something i overheard.
Its a ridiculous proposition, i know that.

I might apologize for being angry there. Somethings just make me really angry and im now deciding to fight back rather than letting it destroy me.
You are right, I shouldn't have responded in the way I did. I think it was just such a ridiculous statement (and I've heard a few recently) that I reacted in a way I shouldn't have done. I should definitely have responded more constructively. So I apologise.
0
reply
similarBlank
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#54
Report 2 years ago
#54
It started to get silly after 2:36.
0
reply
tengentoppa
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#55
Report 2 years ago
#55
(Original post by Davij038)
They would say that our reliance our reliance on financial services is a bad thing, and they may have a point.


I agree with most of that, and that's enough for me not to support the green party (as well as other reasons)

That said:

I'm something of a trident-sceptic. I'm not particularly convinced we need a nuclear deterrent and it could be spent better e.g on military research.

I think we should leave NATO, or ideally Kick Turkey out
Given we're a relatively small country with little in the way of natural resources, London's status as a financial capital of the world certainly goes a long way in cementing our status and relative affluence.

To want to diversify the economy such that we are not dependant on one sector is logical, but to want to actively weaken the one sector where we are pre-eminent seems foolish to me.

I would describe myself as pro-trident, though I can certainly see the arguments against. I would 100% agree with kicking Turkey out of NATO.
0
reply
username2387497
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#56
Report 2 years ago
#56
(Original post by Nightwing_)
You are right, I shouldn't have responded in the way I did. I think it was just such a ridiculous statement (and I've heard a few recently) that I reacted in a way I shouldn't have done. I should definitely have responded more constructively. So I apologise.
I get called a idiot for most things i do. Have done for my whole life.
Im not taking it anymore
Again i didnt come up with it. I just posted it here alright!
Thanks for said apology.
0
reply
LordMallard
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#57
Report 2 years ago
#57
I don't like the Green Party, but that was quite funny
0
reply
Betelgeuse-
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#58
Report 2 years ago
#58
Well played green party, tell me more about these low cost green energy policies you have...
0
reply
NoPunInThisName
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#59
Report 2 years ago
#59
(Original post by AlmightyJesus)
oh for ****'s sake not again - using mere *children* for political purposes...that's ****ing low. honestly. they shouldn't do that. don't politicise children or use them for political ammunition. they have no idea what they're doing or saying when they're told to read out these scripts that are obviously spun for the green party's agenda. and if it wasn't for the green party's agenda, what would be the point of the video?
imagine if far right politicians started exploiting children for politics - we'd all be justifiably outraged. so why can they do it? this is truly inappropriate and I'm actually surprised that nobody on this thread even addressed this yet. they can only say "hahaha oh kids say the darnedest things" - I expected more
So you're telling me that the kids used in the video and the actual politicians they're representing... are different......?
0
reply
AlmightyJesus
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#60
Report 2 years ago
#60
(Original post by NoPunInThisName)
So you're telling me that the kids used in the video and the actual politicians they're representing... are different......?
...?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (75)
19.38%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (157)
40.57%
Nope, not that interesting (155)
40.05%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed