What was so bad about Corbyn? Watch

QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#81
Report 4 weeks ago
#81
(Original post by Good bloke)
Priviliged elite? The existing owners are pension funds and ordinary people. This would have confiscated 10% from virtually everyone, and the income would then have been largely confiscated again. Pure robbery.
So your problem is with a slightly more egalitarian redistribution of a small amount of wealth between essentially the same people.
And that is worse than the economic disaster that would be a Hard Brexit and the economic oppression of low earners and the disadvantaged by a hard-right Tory government?
That's like cutting off your fingers so you don't have to trim your nails.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#82
Report 4 weeks ago
#82
(Original post by deathbyfm)
1) He invited IRA convicts to Parliament which, irrespective of the purpose, was entirely inappropriate in the wake of the Brighton bombings
Yes, we know what happened 35 years ago. You still have to explain why that would make him a worse PM than Johnson today.

2) You haven't addressed the fact that he repeatedly denied meeting IRA members
No. He denied "meeting with the IRA" (in any official capacity). See previous analogy.
Also, you need to explain why it is ok for the British government to meet with the IRA, and facilitate terrorist attacks, but not ok for Corbyn to meet with IRA members.

Look, the accusation is that he "supported terrorism", not that he met with political representatives of terrorist groups, because there is nothing inherently wrong with that. It's how we arrived at peace in NI FFS! There is zero evidence that he "supporter terrorism". He has always condemned all terrorism.
So I fail to see what your point is, other than "Look what it says on a far-right social media stream!".
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#83
Report 4 weeks ago
#83
(Original post by paul514)
If people need to ask what is so bad about corbyn they need to look at their own politics because it is extremely obvious what is wrong with him.
And yet no one has been able to show anything other than subjective opinion and dodgy far-right social media posts.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#84
Report 4 weeks ago
#84
(Original post by QE2)
So your problem is with a slightly more egalitarian redistribution of a small amount of wealth between essentially the same people.
And that is worse than the economic disaster that would be a Hard Brexit and the economic oppression of low earners and the disadvantaged by a hard-right Tory government?
That's like cutting off your fingers so you don't have to trim your nails.
Niow I know you are trolling us. This particular Conservative goverment is the wettest for many decades, far from far-right, and probably as far left as Blair was.
0
reply
judeheat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#85
Report 4 weeks ago
#85
QE2, A couple days ago I made incredibly valid points that you completely ignored, now which side of the spectrum is just operating on subjective opinions?
0
reply
deathbySTEP
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#86
Report 4 weeks ago
#86
(Original post by QE2)
Yes, we know what happened 35 years ago. You still have to explain why that would make him a worse PM than Johnson today.


No. He denied "meeting with the IRA" (in any official capacity). See previous analogy.
Also, you need to explain why it is ok for the British government to meet with the IRA, and facilitate terrorist attacks, but not ok for Corbyn to meet with IRA members.

Look, the accusation is that he "supported terrorism", not that he met with political representatives of terrorist groups, because there is nothing inherently wrong with that. It's how we arrived at peace in NI FFS! There is zero evidence that he "supporter terrorism". He has always condemned all terrorism.
So I fail to see what your point is, other than "Look what it says on a far-right social media stream!".
You assume that he said that he didn't meet with the IRA in any official capacity as an excuse to prop up your feeble argument against the irrefutable fact that he lied about meeting these IRA convicts. I'm still not sure how you could possibly defend Corbyn on this one

By the way, I never said that Corbyn was a worse PM than Johnson, the OP's question is why Corbyn was so bad. And you still fail to explain how the fact that he lied about his interactions with the IRA, repeatedly denying that he met them, somehow manages to make him 'less bad'
0
reply
Red Rose Leftist
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#87
Report 4 weeks ago
#87
(Original post by judeheat)
QE2, A couple days ago I made incredibly valid points that you completely ignored, now which side of the spectrum is just operating on subjective opinions?
Yours. Whoever you are?
0
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#88
Report 4 weeks ago
#88
(Original post by QE2)
Are you saying that people with disabilities are necessarily idiots? How dare you?!

Either the vote has some kind of meaning, or it is just a random allocation of likes. At the moment it is more like the latter.
(BTW, my preferred system is a technocracy with fixed-term appointments by random selection from a database of suitable candidates)
I was saying that some people find in harder than to take test because they have disabilities. Also if you were aware of were the word 'idiot' come from you will not be using it because dehumanize people with learning disabilities. Good bye. Read the link

https://www.campbellmgold.com/archiv...les_idiots.pdf
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#89
Report 4 weeks ago
#89
(Original post by looloo2134)
if you were aware of were the word 'idiot' come from you will not be using it because dehumanize people with learning disabilities.
Idiot means 'stupid person' and comes from Middle English via (ld French and ultimately the Latin 'idiota' and Greek 'idiotes' (meaning ignorant person). It does not dehumanise.
0
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#90
Report 4 weeks ago
#90
(Original post by Good bloke)
Idiot means 'stupid person' and comes from Middle English via (ld French and ultimately the Latin 'idiota' and Greek 'idiotes' (meaning ignorant person). It does not dehumanise.
The word idiot has been be use in the past as a medical term for a person with a learning disabilities by doctor. It has lead to people with learning disabilities being abused.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#91
Report 4 weeks ago
#91
(Original post by looloo2134)
The word idiot has been be use in the past as a medical term for a person with a learning disabilities by doctor. It has lead to people with learning disabilities being abused.
There are hundreds of words that are used to abuse people. Even the word 'still' has been used. Are you going to stop people using it?
1
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#92
Report 4 weeks ago
#92
(Original post by Good bloke)
There are hundreds of words that are used to abuse people. Even the word 'still' has been used. Are you going to stop people using it?
The history of the treatment of people learn disabilities and use of words such as moron, idiot, retard have be used as medical terms by doctors that have lead to people being abuse in homes, the NHS testing drugs on children with learning disabilities, even murdered. The word 'still' is nothing like word 'idiot' and it meaning.

There are groups that are trying to get the words moron, idiot, retard out of use as they dehumanizing people with learning disabilities.
https://www.verywellfamily.com/what-...r-word-3105651
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#93
Report 4 weeks ago
#93
(Original post by looloo2134)
There are groups that are trying to get the words moron, idiot, retard out of use
Obviously, they will fail.
1
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#94
Report 4 weeks ago
#94
(Original post by Good bloke)
Obviously, they will fail.
Hopefully it will work and hopefully using those vile words were seen as bad as using N word for a black person.
0
reply
Neilos
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#95
Report 4 weeks ago
#95
(Original post by looloo2134)
Hopefully it will work and hopefully using those vile words were seen as bad as using N word for a black person.
Can't see it happening. Whatever the word 'idiot' used to be, it's long since become an everyday part of normal speech with a different meaning. Same as moron. They'll never get people to stop using ordinary, informal language just because someone took an existing word and used it in an unpleasant medical manner 60 or 70 years ago.
0
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#96
Report 4 weeks ago
#96
(Original post by Neilos)
Can't see it happening. Whatever the word 'idiot' used to be, it's long since become an everyday part of normal speech with a different meaning. Same as moron. They'll never get people to stop using ordinary, informal language just because someone took an existing word and used it in an unpleasant medical manner 60 or 70 years ago.
The words "mental retardation" and replaced "intellectual disability" were only removed because Rosa's Law 2010 in some states. So no it not in past and people with intellectual disability know what the words means and are understandable upset when they hear them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa%27s_Law
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#97
Report 4 weeks ago
#97
(Original post by Good bloke)
Niow I know you are trolling us. This particular Conservative goverment is the wettest for many decades, far from far-right, and probably as far left as Blair was.
This is likely to be true.

Boris is first and foremost a populist like Blair who believes in very little which means he only takes big risks when he is on the line electorally (a majority of 80 means he does not have to take any risk until 2023/2024). In addition unlike Cameron (not as populist but wet in his beliefs) who selected a relative ideologue as his number 2 (Osbourne genuinely believes in a small state and liberalism) he has selected Javid who is also pretty much a populist.

Any real ideology is most likely to come from Patel or Raab since Gove is headed for international trade in February however there are also doubts over Raab maintaining his position.
0
reply
Neilos
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#98
Report 4 weeks ago
#98
(Original post by looloo2134)
The words "mental retardation" and replaced "intellectual disability" were only removed because Rosa's Law 2010 in some states. So no it not in past and people with intellectual disability know what the words means and are understandable upset when they hear them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa%27s_Law
American legalese has a negligible impact on British informal speech, so not sure how that law's relevant (I'm speaking from a British perspective, unsure of the societal views in America).

But, I do actually view 'retard' as different to idiot and moron... I wouldn't personally use it, and would consider it likely to cause offence. It hasn't progressed as far into everyday language, and away from the archaic medical terminology, as the other two.

(Forgive us the mild hijacking, political folk)
Last edited by Neilos; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#99
Report 4 weeks ago
#99
(Original post by QE2)
And yet no one has been able to show anything other than subjective opinion and dodgy far-right social media posts.
Everything your opponents say becomes "subjective opinion" when you're far enough down the rabbit hole.

In the end, the question in the thread title implicitly asks us to reflect on public opinion. Ultimately the British public didn't believe his narrative that he was a peace campaigner in Northern Ireland, that he is perfectly fine with the Jews, that he didn't really support the sort of far-left shenanigans that have brought countless countries to their knees - and delivered their verdict accordingly.

Anyone can say anything, but the reality is that for the vast majority of people what Corbyn was selling wasn't even close to being believable and many people were utterly terrified of the prospect of him becoming Prime Minister. Rightly so, in my view - it is to the eternal shame of the Labour Party, under several former leaders (many otherwise decent people), that they didn't kick him out decades ago and send him packing to be an obscure member of some north London SWP group.
4
reply
Daze93
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#100
Report 4 weeks ago
#100
(Original post by L i b)
Everything your opponents say becomes "subjective opinion" when you're far enough down the rabbit hole.

In the end, the question in the thread title implicitly asks us to reflect on public opinion. Ultimately the British public didn't believe his narrative that he was a peace campaigner in Northern Ireland, that he is perfectly fine with the Jews, that he didn't really support the sort of far-left shenanigans that have brought countless countries to their knees - and delivered their verdict accordingly.

Anyone can say anything, but the reality is that for the vast majority of people what Corbyn was selling wasn't even close to being believable and many people were utterly terrified of the prospect of him becoming Prime Minister. Rightly so, in my view - it is to the eternal shame of the Labour Party, under several former leaders (many otherwise decent people), that they didn't kick him out decades ago and send him packing to be an obscure member of some north London SWP group.
No tuition fees was more than enough of a reason to vote for Corbyn. It's a shame because if he were to have been elected, it would have been more interesting to see what happens next. Boris however, is boring and too stupid looking.
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

Have you ever signed up for an open day and then not gone to it?

Yes (214)
52.97%
No (190)
47.03%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed