- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3195 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
169 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 88122
CON 368 (MAJ 86)
|>>|| No. 88543
It's up to the NEC to decide tomorrow, but if it goes as planned then Corbyn will still be leader until the end of March.
|>>|| No. 88545
>They led with that because of the initial denial and because the picture quite clearly contradicted what he said.
What about my questions which followed that, two of which were addressed directly to you?
Look, I haven't analysed every instance of reporting for these things personally. Not the Falklands or Trident. I ran down as many examples as I had patience for by myself in >>87062.
Luckily, I don't have to, as there are many dedicated people who study this kind of thing full-time. I've repeatedly linked to research about media coverage of Corbyn. I will admit that paper doesn't necessarily support my additional claim that it would happen to anyone with similar beliefs, but the fact all of this hasn't even created the slightest bit of doubt for you leads me to think there is no level of proof that will change your mind.
|>>|| No. 88546
I've no real interest in getting into a lengthy debate about the wreath incident. My point was simply how there's just so many occurrences that people don't give him the benefit of the doubt and he doesn't help himself even if he is being misrepresented because he will do something daft like saying he wasn't involved when he's pictured with the wreath, which makes people view him as untrustworthy.
I'm fully aware that he is regularly misrepresented in the media, but it is possible to think that Jeremy Corbyn is a massive flaccid cock without being brainwashed by them.
|>>|| No. 88549
>Why did the BBC and the papers choose to lead with the "I don't think I was involved in it" quote, rather than the discussion of the "cycle of violence" that came right afterward
Let me rephrase your question for you.
Why did the BBC and the papers choose to lead with a matter of controversy and interest, rather than the talking point that came right afterward? Why did they report on the thing that they wanted and needed to report on, and not the thing that he tried to deflect them towards?
There's evidently a clear disconnect between his words and his actions. Just like many other people in politics. The main difference between him and Boris is that we all know and accept that Boris has at best a casual relationship with reality.
|>>|| No. 88550
No, I think we should stick with the question I asked and the three that followed, as they were very obviously building toward a greater point.
|>>|| No. 88554
Yes, I believe your point was "why don't those nasty people in the media take Dear Leader's uncritically instead of doing their job?".
|>>|| No. 88557
The media are not doing their job, if they miss facts like who the wreath was actually being laid for.
>There's evidently a clear disconnect between his words and his actions.
Corbyn has been remarkably consistent in his views and actions, as an anti-war campaigner that advocates for the rights of Palestinians and believes that dialogue is necessary for a peace settlement. If you want to assert that someone has connections to terrorism, that requires strong evidence. That evidence has never been provided, only tenuous connections.
As for my broader points I've already stated them several times. Media willfully fixates on a very narrow range of issues, and has already been shown to misrepresent events.
|>>|| No. 88558
For someone who is supposedly anti-war, anti-dolphin rape and anti-terrorism, he has an awful habit of doing and saying things such people shouldn't be doing. When asked about specific terror groups or specific complaints of dolphin rape, he did the equivalent of "all lives matter", which entirely misses the point, and centres himself over the victims. That right there is a very real disconnect, and simply denying it and calling it a fabrication or spin isn't going to make it disappear.
|>>|| No. 88564
>When asked about specific terror groups or specific complaints of dolphin rape, he did the equivalent of "all lives matter", which entirely misses the point, and centres himself over the victims.
The event itself was for the 1985 Israeli bombing of the PLO headquarters, an entirely different event. Corbyn's response in the interview was to express sympathy for those which the event was actually intended for, and those to which the media were accusing him of disregarding, despite that being a misrepresentation.
That is absolutely not the equivalent of the "all lives matter" argument, particularly when you consider a) that the Black Lives Matter movement is centered around the fact that black people are killed at a much higher rate than other groups in the U.S. and b) the disproportionate number of Palestinian deaths in the conflict with Israel.
You're speaking of a disconnect with reality, but that is a truly blinkered comparison to try and make.
|>>|| No. 88565
You're in no position to talk about blinkers.
He was asked to condemn the activities of Hamas and Hezbollah. He said "all terror is bad".
He was asked to condemn the activities of the IRA. He said "all terror is bad".
He was asked to condemn the antisemitism in his party and his own past. He said "all dolphin rape is bad".
That's absolutely, indisputably an "all lives matter" argument.
|>>|| No. 88567
>the Black Lives Matter movement is centered around the fact that black people are killed at a much higher rate than other groups in the U.S
|>>|| No. 88568
Only if you totally disregard context, both in terms in real world events and everything else that was said, as you have done in your post.
|>>|| No. 88570
Here is Corbyn responding to a request to condemn IRA violence by saying "all bombing is wrong" (11:20). What context is being disregarded here?
|>>|| No. 88571
So is some bombing less wrong? Or fine? I don't get it.
|>>|| No. 88572
>Did you kill your wife?
>All murder is wrong.
Corbyn's refusal to be specific makes him look guilty by association. It reeks of evasiveness and whataboutery. It's one of the many, many reasons why he ended up with the worst net approval rating of any leader of a major party since the dawn of polling.
Even if Corbyn was entirely justified in refusing to specifically condemn Hamas or the IRA or anti-Semites in the Labour party, he burned an enormous amount of political capital for no reason other than ego. He refused to do things that weren't in his nature but would obviously make him more electable; in doing so, he chose the adulation of Momentum supporters over the chance of actually delivering change for the people he purports to represent.
Would it have killed him to buy a proper suit back in 2016? Would it have killed him to pretend to like the Queen? Would it have killed him to say "Labour has a problem with anti-Semitism, it's completely unacceptable, I apologise unreservedly to the Jewish community and I will keep apologising until we have driven this cancer out of our party once and for all"?
People say that Boris is narcissistic, but he's more than willing to utterly humiliate himself if he thinks that there might be a few votes in it. Corbyn didn't even have the defence of sticking to his principles - on countless occasions, he eventually bent to the whim of the electorate but only after a petulant display of resistance that clearly telegraphed his insincerity.
|>>|| No. 88573
I think it's very likely he would have been condemned either way, and regardless of the speed or sincerity with which he capitulated.
|>>|| No. 88575
>He refused to do things that weren't in his nature
What a terrible fucking PM that would have made him - having principles.
|>>|| No. 88576
Yes. We live in a democracy. That means more than just getting to pick a demagogue once every five years, but having a leadership that responds to public opinion. A good Prime Minister shouldn't be a will-o-the-wisp, but nor should they be an inflexible ideologue. A Prime Minister that refuses to compromise is a crisis waiting to happen, whether that's the Poll Tax or the Iraq war. More than anything, they need to know how to pick their battles.
As I said in my final sentence, Corbyn has equivocated or u-turned on so many occasions that he can't legitimately claim to be principled rather than merely obstinate. He was an outspoken Eurosceptic for his entire career as a back-bencher, before becoming remarkably mute on the issue as party leader. He refused to apologise to Jewish people until ceding to the unbearable pressure of Holly Willoughby. He u-turned on the "all bombing is wrong" comment and eventually made a specific condemnation of the IRA.
|>>|| No. 88577
The problem is, and what a lot of critics refused to grant Corbyn, that he simply couldn't weasel out of things like an ordinary politician would have. That's the entire reason he ended up as the leader in the first place. I liked him for that reason- I might not agree with every one of his wooly liberal social views, but I liked his economic policy and I respected his willingness to actually stand up for what he believed in. That's a rare thing in a politician.
Of course he was never going to be prime minister in a million years but the shit that has been flung at him has demonstrated how scared the establishment are of such an individual. This time next year they'll be right back to criticising whoever replaces him for being a weathervane and lying through their teeth just to say the right thing, but Corbyn was one of the only politicians not to do that.
Within that context it changes a lot of those answers. It might very well have killed him to do any of those things, because when he was already struggling against the centrists who hated him, he couldn't lose the support of the people who actually did.
|>>|| No. 88578
Having personal integrity is not the same thing as ignoring the electorate.
|>>|| No. 88579
The famous straight talking honest politics which didn't really materialise as he was often paralysed by indecisive dithering. What you mean is that you liked his authenticity and how he wasn't PR savvy, even if in reality it just meant he was authentically a bit shit.
|>>|| No. 88582
He was paralysed because he kept earnestly trying to win the centrists and critics over. He was completely trapped, damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
I'm not pretending he was perfect, and you're reading a lot into what had been my first post thus far on the matter. He represented something that would definitely have been good for the state of politics in general if it had caught on. A return to a time before politics was about policies, not PR.
I'm one of the people who have been saying for years that Labour only stand a chance if they can get away from the liberal, PC identity politics, which is electoral poison in the current climate. But I still had hope for Corbyn to bring a bit of integrity to the table- That turned out to be his greatest weakness.
|>>|| No. 88673
Swing from Labour to the Tories where BXP stood: 5.2%
Swing from Labour to the Tories where BXP did not stand: 4.9%
It was totally BXP splitting the vote wot dun it.
|>>|| No. 88674
Can't tell if you're saying that sarcastically. You've posted a graph showing that they turned what was going to be a catastrophic loss into slightly more of a catastrophic loss.
|>>|| No. 88677
The graph doesn't show that at all. Where did you learn to infer causality, The Room?
|>>|| No. 88679
If you have to dump a load of charts, open up Paint and stick them into one image or something, you big git.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]