A new political party and its manifesto Watch

Lukem14
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#61
Report 2 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by kali8603)
Transgenderism is dangerous, and is a bourgeousis concept. When have you ever seen a working class transgender?. I don't think it should be banned completey, but under 21s at least should be banned from changing gender. Seems veyr reasonable.
But you said it would be banned for anyone under the age of 30. So you clearly don’t even know your own manifesto. Why not 18? 30 is a weird age. Also, transgender people don’t belong to a certain class that’s just pathetic. It is not a choice. Perhaps you should do more research and be more clear on your policies.
0
reply
kali8603
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#62
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by Lukem14)
But you said it would be banned for anyone under the age of 30. So you clearly don’t even know your own manifesto. Why not 18? 30 is a weird age. Also, transgender people don’t belong to a certain class that’s just pathetic. It is not a choice. Perhaps you should do more research and be more clear on your policies.
Yes I said 30 in the manifesto, and I'll stick by thirty, because at the very least you shouldn't be able to change your gender until age 21.

Many 18 year olds are still developing.

Age 30 because by then you've lived long enough to have passed through puberty and are an adult.

And generally transgenders are middle class, because working class people are more preoccupied with their labour and are more concerned with providing food for their family or making a living.

Transgenderism also diminishes the hard work of the gay liberation movement to get rights for homosexuals. Instead of haivng the courage to come out as a homosexual, now you can just change your gender so you can date the opposite sex.

Transgenders are not even liked by half of all homosexuals
0
reply
Lukem14
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#63
Report 2 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by kali8603)
Yes I said 30 in the manifesto, and I'll stick by thirty, because at the very least you shouldn't be able to change your gender until age 21.

Many 18 year olds are still developing.

Age 30 because by then you've lived long enough to have passed through puberty and are an adult.

And generally transgenders are middle class, because working class people are more preoccupied with their labour and are more concerned with providing food for their family or making a living.

Transgenderism also diminishes the hard work of the gay liberation movement to get rights for homosexuals. Instead of haivng the courage to come out as a homosexual, now you can just change your gender so you can date the opposite sex.

Transgenders are not even liked by half of all homosexuals
Personally, I think it should be around 18-21 not 30.
Also, Why would homosexuals not like transgenders?
0
reply
kali8603
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#64
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by Lukem14)
Personally, I think it should be around 18-21 not 30.
Also, Why would homosexuals not like transgenders?
Because as mentioned, they undermine the struggle for gay rights. It takes a lot of courage to come out as gay. To avoid becoming a homosexual, maybe one would come out as a different sex so they can just date the sex they like
0
reply
Lukem14
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#65
Report 2 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by kali8603)
Because as mentioned, they undermine the struggle for gay rights. It takes a lot of courage to come out as gay. To avoid becoming a homosexual, maybe one would come out as a different sex so they can just date the sex they like
Transgender honestly don’t feel comfortable in their body. They’re not trying to avoid coming out.
0
reply
kali8603
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#66
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by Lukem14)
Transgender honestly don’t feel comfortable in their body. They’re not trying to avoid coming out.
I know a lot of people who have changed gender just because it's become a fad and has become acceptable
0
reply
Lukem14
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#67
Report 2 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by kali8603)
I know a lot of people who have changed gender just because it's become a fad and has become acceptable
Yeh transgender people are more likely to change gender now than in the past because it’s more acceptable which makes it safer. Personally, I think it’s harder to be transgender than gay so why would a gay person change gender to avoid coming out?
0
reply
kali8603
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#68
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#68
(Original post by Lukem14)
Yeh transgender people are more likely to change gender now than in the past because it’s more acceptable which makes it safer. Personally, I think it’s harder to be transgender than gay so why would a gay person change gender to avoid coming out?
You're right in some ways, it is easier to become gay than it was, but maybe transgenderism is just the new gay. The thing that worries me is that transgenderism seems to be too far. I've got no problem whatsoever with homosexuals. But actually changing your gender? What will we do next? Legalise paedophilia? Some liberals already want this.
0
reply
Alt Tankie
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#69
Report 2 weeks ago
#69
(Original post by kali8603)
You can be anti war and anti capitalist as a Marxist or socialist. Did Stalin support gays? No, he didn't, yet he definitely wasn't a fascist. In fact, most socialist countries are still socially conservative. I'm against transgenderism, and the main communist party in Britain, the CPGB-ML is too. It's only western marxists who seem to think that these radlib ideas are acceptable
Absolutely, and these are all viewed as basically fascists by most people and are dying out. Marxism has been successfully co-opted by liberalism. Do you see this changing honestly?

I think the only way forward is a grand realignment which is already basically happening - Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang were heavily supported by the Alt Right and in Europe the Left Wing parties will almost always choose to back neoliberalism over a socially conservative but more economically left wing populist party.

Additionally look at how culturally homogenous these socialist countries are. Sweden was a famously successful left wing country until liberals decided to let in millions of refugees and now its famous for rape gangs and grenade attacks.

———-

Additionally look at this thread- all the left wingers are appalled that you would support Assad and think there’s anything wrong with trans people and all the conservatives think tax is theft and support Zionism . You might ‘hate’ Nazis but for the people you’re trying to attract you are one. So you basically need to pick a side.
0
reply
Alt Tankie
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#70
Report 2 weeks ago
#70
(Original post by kali8603)
You're right in some ways, it is easier to become gay than it was, but maybe transgenderism is just the new gay. The thing that worries me is that transgenderism seems to be too far. I've got no problem whatsoever with homosexuals. But actually changing your gender? What will we do next? Legalise paedophilia? Some liberals already want this.
The slippery slope is real my friend. Homosexuality has opened up a Pandora’s box.

....

That said you’re argument about trans people being too far is illogical if you’re accepting of homosexuality. Why should homosexuality be allowed but not trans?

- it’s their free choice
- they’re not directly harming anyone
-love is love

You can make arguments against these but they will also undermine the arguments against homosexuality. The liberals are right : transphobia is latent homophobia
1
reply
kali8603
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#71
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#71
(Original post by Alt Tankie)
Absolutely, and these are all viewed as basically fascists by most people and are dying out. Marxism has been successfully co-opted by liberalism. Do you see this changing honestly?

I think the only way forward is a grand realignment which is already basically happening - Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang were heavily supported by the Alt Right and in Europe the Left Wing parties will almost always choose to back neoliberalism over a socially conservative but more economically left wing populist party.

Additionally look at how culturally homogenous these socialist countries are. Sweden was a famously successful left wing country until liberals decided to let in millions of refugees and now its famous for rape gangs and grenade attacks.

———-

Additionally look at this thread- all the left wingers are appalled that you would support Assad and think there’s anything wrong with trans people and all the conservatives think tax is theft and support Zionism . You might ‘hate’ Nazis but for the people you’re trying to attract you are one. So you basically need to pick a side.
A lot of far-leftists/anti imperialists support Assad. George Galloway for example. In fact me, and him are far more similar than you and the alt right. We're both socialists, but at the same time we are somewhat socially conservative. And also like me and him, we also have a faith at the same time.
0
reply
Alt Tankie
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#72
Report 2 weeks ago
#72
(Original post by kali8603)
A lot of far-leftists/anti imperialists support Assad. George Galloway for example. In fact me, and him are far more similar than you and the alt right. We're both socialists, but at the same time we are somewhat socially conservative. And also like me and him, we also have a faith at the same time.
Sure but GG and others like him and Slavoj Zizek are old and have been relegated to RT. The Alt right have a young base whereas the old socially conservative communists are increasingly reliant on OAPs eg See France and the Communist Party vs Front nationale
0
reply
AstronautID
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#73
Report 1 week ago
#73
Allright, let's cut to the chase.

I understand centralisation and planning are the very stuff of socialism; it comes with the territory, let's say so.
Now, how do the workers know what exactly they're going to make under the rule of SFGB, should it come in power? Who is in the know?
What I am asking is, first, what precisely the country must manufacture to stake out a claim to being a country of economic might?
And second, what specific industries are you going to have taken off the ground, ones that calls for the creation of a new party aimed at ruling on behalf of none other than British workers?
And then again, the worker is going to ask how you do know what to manufacture. I take it you want to have the UK be saturated with electrical vehicles. How do you know that it is EVs that need to be made a priority? How has this specific decision been make? Is it because Tesla has blazed the trail and now the rest of carmakers got serious about EVs so as to go as far as to have made investment in them on the order of tens of billions?

Next comes a train network in the SFGB Manifesto. Whilst the private sector all over the world aims at Hyperloop you want to have state-run plants make trains, don't you? If this is the case how are you going to make sure the state-run plant is able to compete with private-funded and run Hyperloop?

Are you ready to stop at nothing to make the UK a country of economic might?
0
reply
kali8603
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#74
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#74
(Original post by AstronautID)
Allright, let's cut to the chase.

I understand centralisation and planning are the very stuff of socialism; it comes with the territory, let's say so.
Now, how do the workers know what exactly they're going to make under the rule of SFGB, should it come in power? Who is in the know?
What I am asking is, first, what precisely the country must manufacture to stake out a claim to being a country of economic might?
And second, what specific industries are you going to have taken off the ground, ones that calls for the creation of a new party aimed at ruling on behalf of none other than British workers?
And then again, the worker is going to ask how you do know what to manufacture. I take it you want to have the UK be saturated with electrical vehicles. How do you know that it is EVs that need to be made a priority? How has this specific decision been make? Is it because Tesla has blazed the trail and now the rest of carmakers got serious about EVs so as to go as far as to have made investment in them on the order of tens of billions?

Next comes a train network in the SFGB Manifesto. Whilst the private sector all over the world aims at Hyperloop you want to have state-run plants make trains, don't you? If this is the case how are you going to make sure the state-run plant is able to compete with private-funded and run Hyperloop?

Are you ready to stop at nothing to make the UK a country of economic might?
Thank you, finally someone is willing to actually make a few good questions. Your first question is not simple to answer, did you read that I would increase minimum wage to £9.20? Aside from that, I can't guarantee anyone making X amount of money. No government has ever been able to forecast this.

What should we manufacture? To start with, we must bring back the car industry. We should create a state owned car industry or at least part state owned and build these vehicles in Britain. The second thing we must manufacture is things like trains, we used to be a leader in this, and now we are falling behind. We should also bring back our computer industries, we should do what China did with Huawei and make our own smartphones etc. We already manufacture weapons, we should increase this production.

I don't want the UK to be saturated with EVs, but if we are serious about tackling climate change, we should be avoiding at the very least diesel cars. So building ECs should once again come under state control. EVs will soon become mainstream, and already most manufacturers are releasing and developing EVs

Regarding train networks, I'm unaware of this hyperloop you mention. The SFGB are not so bothered about having our trains everywhere in the world, rather we would have our own efficient trains, that can ideally be built in the UK.

Your last point. Economic prosperity can bring prosperity for the people if economic centralisation exists. However, overall we would rather we have a workforce with high morale, and a well financed workforce and well motivated workforce. Capitalism seeks to become an economic power by outsourcing, exploiting workers rights etc. If its a choice between workers rights and a better economy, I will choose the former.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
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 attending a Global Climate Strike?

Yes, I'm striking (38)
7.44%
No, but I wanted to/I support the cause (298)
58.32%
No (175)
34.25%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed