The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[titaniumbean]

that implies we can trust the other side, and therein our problem lies. both are shite. 

[RickBFA]

that implies we can trust the other side, and therein our problem lies. both are shite. 

It implies only that Abbott and McDonnell aren't trusted by a lot of the British public.

They are not suitable candidates to be Home Secretary and Chancellor.

I'd rather see Amber Rudd and Philip Hammond in those respectively roles every day of the week. Both more competent and suitable for the roles.

[titaniumbean]

that implies we can trust the other side, and therein our problem lies. both are shite. 

It implies only that Abbott and McDonnell aren't trusted by a lot of the British public.

They are not suitable candidates to be Home Secretary and Chancellor.

I'd rather see Amber Rudd and Philip Hammond in those respectively roles every day of the week. Both more competent and suitable for the roles.

if we had to trust our politicians and they were held accountable to what they said, we wouldn't have politicians 

[PokerBroker]

http://www.neonnettle.com/news/2211-amnesty-international-confirms-us-gave-isis-1-billion-of-weapons-in-2016

But McDonnell and Corbyn are the terrorist sympathisers. 

[TightEnd]

http://www.neonnettle.com/news/2211-amnesty-international-confirms-us-gave-isis-1-billion-of-weapons-in-2016

But McDonnell and Corbyn are the terrorist sympathisers.  

come on, try harder. alt news sites, just bollocks

"Neon Nettle is an alternative and independent news source. It is also a Conspiracy and Pseudoscience website. There are many articles about aliens, New World Order, etc. Has a Pants on Fire claim with Politifact. Really the best way to discover this site is to actually visit it and see for yourself. I suggest a tin foil hat."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/neon-nettle/

McDonnell and Corbyn definitely are terrorist sympathisers. you can say so without implying that western foreign policy is or has been correct!

the fact that they sympathised may or may not be relevant to your vote, i accept

[RickBFA]

that implies we can trust the other side, and therein our problem lies. both are shite. 

It implies only that Abbott and McDonnell aren't trusted by a lot of the British public.

They are not suitable candidates to be Home Secretary and Chancellor.

I'd rather see Amber Rudd and Philip Hammond in those respectively roles every day of the week. Both more competent and suitable for the roles.

if we had to trust our politicians and they were held accountable to what they said, we wouldn't have politicians 

Puttting aside the fact that Abbott and McDonnell are PR disasters, does anyone think they have the skills and capabilities to do 2 key joint jobs in our Government?

Scraping the bottom of the barrel aren't we?

[buffyslayer1]

I agree Abbott should not be allowed anywhere near a cabinet position she is a walking disaster and seriously hinders labours campaign whenever interviewed.

[titaniumbean]

that implies we can trust the other side, and therein our problem lies. both are shite.  

It implies only that Abbott and McDonnell aren't trusted by a lot of the British public.

They are not suitable candidates to be Home Secretary and Chancellor.

I'd rather see Amber Rudd and Philip Hammond in those respectively roles every day of the week. Both more competent and suitable for the roles.

if we had to trust our politicians and they were held accountable to what they said, we wouldn't have politicians  

Puttting aside the fact that Abbott and McDonnell are PR disasters, does anyone think they have the skills and capabilities to do 2 key joint jobs in our Government?

Scraping the bottom of the barrel aren't we?

why not widen the question to anyone currently in their positions. May was super duper great at home sec! We specifically go against expertise and intention in favour of political bias and personal prejudices.




"McDonnell and Corbyn definitely are terrorist sympathisers."

what does this even mean tighty.


'sympathisers' is such a pathetic word to use as a negative.

you cant reach an agreement if you cant understand the other side. why is providing weapons to Saudi so they can destroy the civilians of Yemen not 'sympathising' under your definition, even though ofc its really enabling and by an order of magnitude more appalling yet tumbleweeds from those complaining about Corbyn.

[TightEnd]

that implies we can trust the other side, and therein our problem lies. both are shite. 

It implies only that Abbott and McDonnell aren't trusted by a lot of the British public.

They are not suitable candidates to be Home Secretary and Chancellor.

I'd rather see Amber Rudd and Philip Hammond in those respectively roles every day of the week. Both more competent and suitable for the roles.

if we had to trust our politicians and they were held accountable to what they said, we wouldn't have politicians 

Puttting aside the fact that Abbott and McDonnell are PR disasters, does anyone think they have the skills and capabilities to do 2 key joint jobs in our Government?

Scraping the bottom of the barrel aren't we?

why not widen the question to anyone currently in their positions. May was super duper great at home sec! We specifically go against expertise and intention in favour of political bias and personal prejudices.




"McDonnell and Corbyn definitely are terrorist sympathisers."

what does this even mean tighty.


'sympathisers' is such a pathetic word to use as a negative.

you cant reach an agreement if you cant understand the other side. why is providing weapons to Saudi so they can destroy the civilians of Yemen not 'sympathising' under your definition, even though ofc its really enabling and by an order of magnitude more appalling yet tumbleweeds from those complaining about Corbyn.

Sympathisers was the word used in the post above mine,a term i repeated. i am not defending western policy towards saudi arabia. 

and i also accept that for many people McDonnell and Corbyn's long held views on the IRA are irrelevant now. for me its relevant, but no more relevant i suppose than being asked to accept that Dianne Abbott could be a credible home secretary.

[titaniumbean]

I mean you're alot better with words than me.

Why has/is this phrase the one used to be negative?

The image I posted with the comments from Craig Murray discusses the skillset of empathy/sympathy.


It blew my mind when the USA of 250 million or w/e couldn't find two better turds to choose which was the least shitty, and now we with 65 ish million also have absolutely appalling choices.

How terribly our political system serves us...........

[PokerBroker]

that implies we can trust the other side, and therein our problem lies. both are shite. 

It implies only that Abbott and McDonnell aren't trusted by a lot of the British public.

They are not suitable candidates to be Home Secretary and Chancellor.

I'd rather see Amber Rudd and Philip Hammond in those respectively roles every day of the week. Both more competent and suitable for the roles.

if we had to trust our politicians and they were held accountable to what they said, we wouldn't have politicians 

Puttting aside the fact that Abbott and McDonnell are PR disasters, does anyone think they have the skills and capabilities to do 2 key joint jobs in our Government?

Scraping the bottom of the barrel aren't we?

I don't. 

But I don't think May is fit to lead either.  Rudd isn't much better. 

[PokerBroker]

http://www.neonnettle.com/news/2211-amnesty-international-confirms-us-gave-isis-1-billion-of-weapons-in-2016

But McDonnell and Corbyn are the terrorist sympathisers.  

come on, try harder. alt news sites, just bollocks

"Neon Nettle is an alternative and independent news source. It is also a Conspiracy and Pseudoscience website. There are many articles about aliens, New World Order, etc. Has a Pants on Fire claim with Politifact. Really the best way to discover this site is to actually visit it and see for yourself. I suggest a tin foil hat."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/neon-nettle/

McDonnell and Corbyn definitely are terrorist sympathisers. you can say so without implying that western foreign policy is or has been correct!

the fact that they sympathised may or may not be relevant to your vote, i accept

So because you don't agree with it its bollocks?

Mainstream news is biased, they have a dog in the fight and you expect us to believe they are impartial. 

[PokerBroker]

that implies we can trust the other side, and therein our problem lies. both are shite. 

It implies only that Abbott and McDonnell aren't trusted by a lot of the British public.

They are not suitable candidates to be Home Secretary and Chancellor.

I'd rather see Amber Rudd and Philip Hammond in those respectively roles every day of the week. Both more competent and suitable for the roles.

if we had to trust our politicians and they were held accountable to what they said, we wouldn't have politicians 

Puttting aside the fact that Abbott and McDonnell are PR disasters, does anyone think they have the skills and capabilities to do 2 key joint jobs in our Government?

Scraping the bottom of the barrel aren't we?

why not widen the question to anyone currently in their positions. May was super duper great at home sec! We specifically go against expertise and intention in favour of political bias and personal prejudices.




"McDonnell and Corbyn definitely are terrorist sympathisers."

what does this even mean tighty.


'sympathisers' is such a pathetic word to use as a negative.

you cant reach an agreement if you cant understand the other side. why is providing weapons to Saudi so they can destroy the civilians of Yemen not 'sympathising' under your definition, even though ofc its really enabling and by an order of magnitude more appalling yet tumbleweeds from those complaining about Corbyn.

Sympathisers was the word used in the post above mine,a term i repeated. i am not defending western policy towards saudi arabia. 

and i also accept that for many people McDonnell and Corbyn's long held views on the IRA are irrelevant now. for me its relevant, but no more relevant i suppose than being asked to accept that Dianne Abbott could be a credible home secretary.

Why is it relevant?

What about the tory views on Mandela or Thatchers friendship with Pinochet?

 

[TightEnd]

http://www.neonnettle.com/news/2211-amnesty-international-confirms-us-gave-isis-1-billion-of-weapons-in-2016

But McDonnell and Corbyn are the terrorist sympathisers.  

come on, try harder. alt news sites, just bollocks

"Neon Nettle is an alternative and independent news source. It is also a Conspiracy and Pseudoscience website. There are many articles about aliens, New World Order, etc. Has a Pants on Fire claim with Politifact. Really the best way to discover this site is to actually visit it and see for yourself. I suggest a tin foil hat."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/neon-nettle/

McDonnell and Corbyn definitely are terrorist sympathisers. you can say so without implying that western foreign policy is or has been correct!

the fact that they sympathised may or may not be relevant to your vote, i accept

So because you don't agree with it its bollocks?

Mainstream news is biased, they have a dog in the fight and you expect us to believe they are impartial.  

impartial,often no

credible? some of it yes (FT, Telegraph,independent,new statesman, spectator, guardian yes within editorial policy that might have a political view of course but the journalism is credible, this is the stuff i usuallylink to) some of it overwhelmingly no (mail,sun etc)

altnews i come from the starting point that it is neither impartial or credible


i think the vast majority of us would agree that the current UK politicial talent pool is terrible and in fact a lot of the talent isn't in cabinet/shadow cabinet. i can get het up about abbott but boris as foreign sec? rudd? fallon? jeremy hunt? just not good enough

david miliband, yvette cooper, dan jarvis etc  put those three as shadow chancellor, foreign sec, home sec with keir starmer as leader and Labour is winning this election. Ayone want to disagree with me?

[TightEnd]

that implies we can trust the other side, and therein our problem lies. both are shite.  

It implies only that Abbott and McDonnell aren't trusted by a lot of the British public.

They are not suitable candidates to be Home Secretary and Chancellor.

I'd rather see Amber Rudd and Philip Hammond in those respectively roles every day of the week. Both more competent and suitable for the roles.

if we had to trust our politicians and they were held accountable to what they said, we wouldn't have politicians  

Puttting aside the fact that Abbott and McDonnell are PR disasters, does anyone think they have the skills and capabilities to do 2 key joint jobs in our Government?

Scraping the bottom of the barrel aren't we?

why not widen the question to anyone currently in their positions. May was super duper great at home sec! We specifically go against expertise and intention in favour of political bias and personal prejudices.




"McDonnell and Corbyn definitely are terrorist sympathisers."

what does this even mean tighty.


'sympathisers' is such a pathetic word to use as a negative.

you cant reach an agreement if you cant understand the other side. why is providing weapons to Saudi so they can destroy the civilians of Yemen not 'sympathising' under your definition, even though ofc its really enabling and by an order of magnitude more appalling yet tumbleweeds from those complaining about Corbyn.

Sympathisers was the word used in the post above mine,a term i repeated. i am not defending western policy towards saudi arabia.  

and i also accept that for many people McDonnell and Corbyn's long held views on the IRA are irrelevant now. for me its relevant, but no more relevant i suppose than being asked to accept that Dianne Abbott could be a credible home secretary.

Why is it relevant?

What about the tory views on Mandela or Thatchers friendship with Pinochet?

 

wouldn't defend either, but to the best of my knowledge no current conservative or lib dem politician is anti mandela or pro pinochet

corbyn and mcdonnell could be PM and chancellor in ten days time with pretty much unmoderated views from 20-30 years ago in so far as i can tell