Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Forgot? What?

 

I don’t think many of them are worth fucking anything, but for someone who’s had the job 40 years to have literally fuck all to show for it and then be

lauded as the 2nd coming is a bit...fucking mental. Especially if their are ‘kids’ in their first terms who’ve done more whilst not being photographed abroad because they’ve not been abroad because they’ve been concentrating on their voters.

 

 

Edit: and that’s 1 session. How many sessions has he had? Don’t forget to do the maths for me.

So, Corbyn hasn't been concentrating on his constituents, but he's had loads of sessions in Parliament?  How did he wangle that?

 

The point is, getting a change to the law on printing materials or on MPs' pensions shouldn't be the only measure of success or failure for an MP.  His constituents are obviously happy with the job he's been doing for them for the last 35 years, as they've elected him 8 times, so they're obviously not as hung up as you are on the lack of Private Members Bills or (the horror, the horror!) the fact that he has, on occasion, left the UK.

[Anubis]

The creatures outside looked from Hodges to Rico, and from Rico to Hodges, and from Hodges to Rico again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

[Gym Beglin]

Corbyn is evil, that’s a terrific synopsis of the political issues we face.

 

If you focus intently on one viewpoint, and take it to the extreme, then you’re not really seeing the bigger picture here.

 

Zzz.

[Spy Bee]

As predicted, right on cue.

 

We're now in a situation where the leader of the opposition is consorting with terror chiefs who send mobs into synagogues to murder people with axes.

 

But that's okay, because Israel.

This is just so fucking disingenuous. There's no attempt at constructive discourse here.

[Strontium]

Yes, I'm clearly missing the nuance in hanging around with terrorists.

[Hades]

Not sure Karl Marx would agree

In theory, feminism is virtuous and difficult to disagree with. The people putting it into practice are flawed - it often plays out as women blaming poor and peaceful men for the problems created by rich and violent men. It also inevitably breeds a counter-movement of male chauvinism that in part saw Trump get elected and may explain the rise of authoritarian leaders around the world.

[Rico1304]

In theory, feminism is virtuous and difficult to disagree with. The people putting it into practice are flawed - it often plays out as women blaming poor and peaceful men for the problems created by rich and violent men. It also inevitably breeds a counter-movement of male chauvinism that in part saw Trump get elected and may explain the rise of authoritarian leaders around the world.

Park Life!

[Spy Bee]

Yes, I'm clearly missing the nuance in hanging around with terrorists.

What date was Maher El Taher appointed leader of the PFLP?

What date did he meet Corbyn?

What date did the attacks occur?

Did he have any previous form before these attacks?

Did Corbyn know who he was?

Did Corbyn do anything other than to exchange greetings?

 

If you can't answer all those questions (and more) instantly, then it shows you care little for the nuance, you only care about the smear.

[General Dryness]

Park Life!

Hahahaha.

[ZonkoVille77]

Oops I did it again...

 

https://twitter.com/daniel_sugarman/status/1029840499388178437?s=21

Terrible Photoshop job.

[Spy Bee]

Terrible Photoshop job.

It does look like Photoshop, but surely it's not.

[Strontium]

What date was Maher El Taher appointed leader of the PFLP?

What date did he meet Corbyn?

What date did the attacks occur?

Did he have any previous form before these attacks?

Did Corbyn know who he was?

Did Corbyn do anything other than to exchange greetings?

 

If you can't answer all those questions (and more) instantly, then it shows you care little for the nuance, you only care about the smear.

Those are questions for his DEFENDERS to answer. The onus is on them.

 

The idea that I should cast around looking for valid reasons as to why he would be consorting with terrorists is as risible as it is predictable.

[Anny Road]

Do people honestly believe Corbyn is a man of aggression? 

He is a man of peace who is not afraid to engage anyone provided it will promote peace.

[Spy Bee]

Those are questions for his DEFENDERS to answer. The onus is on them.

 

The idea that I should cast around looking for valid reasons as to why he would be consorting with terrorists is as risible as it is predictable.

So tiresome!

 

You are the one casting aspersions based on Association Fallacy. You are the one throwing stones and being lazy with the facts. I wouldn't expect any better from you though

[Strontium]

Yes, I'm sure there's a perfectly innocent explanation. There always is. Just have to wait for Labour Party press office to email it to you all.

[mars]

Yes, I'm sure there's a perfectly innocent explanation. There always is. Just have to wait for Labour Party press office to email it to you all.

I haven't been following the details of this thread but want to know whether your stance is that it is never right to enter into dialogue with terrorists? I'm not claiming that that was what happened, just curious as to where people stand on this issue. Secondly, when Corbyn condemns terrorist acts, do you believe he is lying?

[Strontium]

I haven't been following the details of this thread but want to know whether your stance is that it is never right to enter into dialogue with terrorists? I'm not claiming that that was what happened, just curious as to where people stand on this issue. Secondly, when Corbyn condemns terrorist acts, do you believe he is lying?

It depends what you mean by "dialogue". But since the PFLP opposes peace negotiations with Israel, it seems moot in this instance.

 

I have no reason to think he would be lying when condemning any terrorist attack. I would just be entitled to think it a bit hollow when he willingly consorts with the people who perpetrate them.

[Strontium]

Do people honestly believe Corbyn is a man of aggression?

He is a man of peace who is not afraid to engage anyone provided it will promote peace.

Still the myth of Corbyn the Peacemaker.

 

You don't achieve peace by engaging with just one side. It's impossible.

[The Guest]

This thread is turning into a daily mail article with these two Tory cunts. They aren’t here for discussion or genuine critical analysis of Corbyn or Labour’s direction and policies under him. They just don’t like left wing politics because they’re right wing. There no changing or reasoning with cunts like that and they will go along with any shite the tabloids come up with. They probably both read the sun on a daily basis

 

It’s why they just keep posting trolling bollocks like “he’s a shit MP because what legislation has Corbyn ever got through Parliament?” It’s like listening to a manc telling you Gerrard is a shit footballer because he never won the premier league. “What policies? one of the cunts comes out with then following it up literally in the next post by revealing he’s actually read the Labour manifesto. It just omitted the words “ending the benefits freeze” or some other specific shite twisted to keep the troll going but comically missing the point that the manifesto did maybe have a few policies in it. It’s just trolling and shouldn’t be responded to.

 

If everyone just blocked them and fucked them off then the thread could actually produce some decent critique. Instead it’s just going to go round in circle where these two cunts post some deliberately vague shite to try to wind people up and unfortunately there’s always at least one to take them up because it’s just too easy to point out what utter shite is being written. It’s gone beyond Code levels of troll.

[Anny Road]

Still the myth of Corbyn the Peacemaker.

 

You don't achieve peace by engaging with just one side. It's impossible.

He possibly is the only one engaging with the other side. The Israel state has no problem with engagement. They have a problem with listening.

It was the same years ago with the Irish. He was 20 years ahead of everyone else.

I totally understand people raising eyebrows but if he was talking to them what do you imagine it was about? Military planning, target acquisition? Or resolution through dialogue?    

[Rico1304]

This thread is turning into a daily mail article with these two Tory cunts. They aren’t here for discussion or genuine critical analysis of Corbyn or Labour’s direction and policies under him. They just don’t like left wing politics because they’re right wing. There no changing or reasoning with cunts like that and they will go along with any shite the tabloids come up with. They probably both read the sun on a daily basis

It’s why they just keep posting trolling bollocks like “he’s a shit MP because what legislation has Corbyn ever got through Parliament?” It’s like listening to a manc telling you Gerrard is a shit footballer because he never won the premier league. “What policies? one of the cunts comes out with then following it up literally in the next post by revealing he’s actually read the Labour manifesto. It just omitted the words “ending the benefits freeze” or some other specific shite twisted to keep the troll going but comically missing the point that the manifesto did maybe have a few policies in it. It’s just trolling and shouldn’t be responded to.

If everyone just blocked them and fucked them off then the thread could actually produce some decent critique. Instead it’s just going to go round in circle where these two cunts post some deliberately vague shite to try to wind people up and unfortunately there’s always at least one to take them up because it’s just too easy to point out what utter shite is being written. It’s gone beyond Code levels of troll.

No point responding as no doubt you’ve taken your own advice. Right?

[Strontium]

This thread is turning into a daily mail article with these two Tory cunts. They aren’t here for discussion or genuine critical analysis of Corbyn or Labour’s direction and policies under him. They just don’t like left wing politics because they’re right wing. There no changing or reasoning with cunts like that and they will go along with any shite the tabloids come up with. They probably both read the sun on a daily basis

It’s why they just keep posting trolling bollocks like “he’s a shit MP because what legislation has Corbyn ever got through Parliament?” It’s like listening to a manc telling you Gerrard is a shit footballer because he never won the premier league. “What policies? one of the cunts comes out with then following it up literally in the next post by revealing he’s actually read the Labour manifesto. It just omitted the words “ending the benefits freeze” or some other specific shite twisted to keep the troll going but comically missing the point that the manifesto did maybe have a few policies in it. It’s just trolling and shouldn’t be responded to.

If everyone just blocked them and fucked them off then the thread could actually produce some decent critique. Instead it’s just going to go round in circle where these two cunts post some deliberately vague shite to try to wind people up and unfortunately there’s always at least one to take them up because it’s just too easy to point out what utter shite is being written. It’s gone beyond Code levels of troll.

You are hilariously stupid.

 

The fact that you of all people can accuse me of not engaging the point is remarkable.

[Dr Nowt]

It’s reached the mutual accusations of being thick stage.

 

Gripping stuff. Can’t wait to see the twists and turns this one will take.

[Strontium]

A plank of wood could call Einstein thick, but we oughtn't take the proposition as seriously as we would if the roles were reversed.

 

We're at the point now where I'm being called a Tory cunt for pointing out that the Labour manifesto committed to keeping Tory benefit cuts. Pick the bones out of that one.

[Jairzinho]

Or, better still, don't bother.