Discussion:
Educated People Like Corbyn vs Conservatives
Add Reply
m***@hotmail.com
2018-09-06 14:56:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For Anti-Corbyn MPs, Muddling Through Is No Longer Viable
The Guardian - September 3, 2018
-- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/03/anti-corbyn-mps-labour-party-split
Street
2018-09-08 22:46:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@hotmail.com
For Anti-Corbyn MPs, Muddling Through Is No Longer Viable
The Guardian - September 3, 2018
-- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/03/anti-corbyn-mps-labour-party-split
But I read that he hate's Jews and sides with Nazis.
Jews = Eternal Conspirators
2018-09-12 19:54:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@hotmail.com
For Anti-Corbyn MPs, Muddling Through Is No Longer Viable
The Guardian - September 3, 2018
-- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/03/anti-corbyn-mps-labour-party-split
Corbyn WHO? We have NO such name in US politics.
Kevrob
2018-09-13 16:17:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jews = Eternal Conspirators
Post by m***@hotmail.com
For Anti-Corbyn MPs, Muddling Through Is No Longer Viable
The Guardian - September 3, 2018
-- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/03/anti-corbyn-mps-labour-party-split
Corbyn WHO? We have NO such name in US politics.
Waddya mean WE, oh "son of Africa?"

Go home to your uwn country, as you have promised so many times,
and don't worry about US politics.

I, a mere US citizen, know who J Corbyn is. This is an
international group, and discussing UK politics here is
as on-charter or off-charter as discussing US politics.

Theo Hobson in THE SPECTATOR pegs "JC" as a probable non-
believer who, like many a US pol I'd wager, is too CS
to actually admit to.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/04/corbyns-probable-atheism-contributes-lack-mainstream-appeal/

I've been involved in campaigns on behalf of candidates who aren't
churchgoers and/or don't believe, and it is an unfortunate fact of
US politics that, legal bans on religious tests for office aside
constituents and groups of voters will ask candidates to declare
their religious affiliations. A polite "none of your business" is
taken as "he's not one of us," and will hurt the candidate. You may
hear "I was raised in the [_________] faith," from folks trying to
soft-pedal the fact that they dropped out of religious observance years ago.

I wouldn't vote Labour if I were British. I'd probably be a modern
version of a Peelite Whig, if I had my druthers, though one who
would divorce the Crown from the Church of England :)

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Jews = Eternal Conspirators
2018-09-13 16:33:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Jews = Eternal Conspirators
Post by m***@hotmail.com
For Anti-Corbyn MPs, Muddling Through Is No Longer Viable
The Guardian - September 3, 2018
-- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/03/anti-corbyn-mps-labour-party-split
Corbyn WHO? We have NO such name in US politics.
Waddya mean WE, oh "son of Africa?"
Go home to your uwn country, as you have promised so many times,
and don't worry about US politics.
I, a mere US citizen, know who J Corbyn is. This is an
international group, and discussing UK politics here is
as on-charter or off-charter as discussing US politics.
Theo Hobson in THE SPECTATOR pegs "JC" as a probable non-
believer who, like many a US pol I'd wager, is too CS
to actually admit to.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/04/corbyns-probable-atheism-contributes-lack-mainstream-appeal/
I've been involved in campaigns on behalf of candidates who aren't
churchgoers and/or don't believe, and it is an unfortunate fact of
US politics that, legal bans on religious tests for office aside
constituents and groups of voters will ask candidates to declare
their religious affiliations. A polite "none of your business" is
taken as "he's not one of us," and will hurt the candidate. You may
hear "I was raised in the [_________] faith," from folks trying to
soft-pedal the fact that they dropped out of religious observance years ago.
Here we go again, yet we keep saying that your interpretation of SECULARISM was a far fetched one.
Look, loser! The pagan Dominion(Roman Empire) which Christ seized from the mighty ones was very secular with its four branches of government: The Senate and the Roman People, The Court, The Cabinet of the Princep, and the Roman Temple.
That's the blueprint.
To turn the Roman Temple into the Church of God, we didn't need to request that senators became priests as the popes over the centuries did by blending bishops and priests together.
True secularism then would have been to return to the pagan structure, instead of that, you erroneously keep thinking that Atheism is secularism. No it ain't....
So all the talk about religious test before taking office is either diversion from the real issue or lacuna.
We won't allow blinds to lead blinds
Post by Kevrob
I wouldn't vote Labour if I were British. I'd probably be a modern
version of a Peelite Whig, if I had my druthers, though one who
would divorce the Crown from the Church of England :)
---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Cloud Hobbit
2018-09-14 06:01:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Jews = Eternal Conspirators
- show quoted text -
Corbyn WHO? We have NO such name in US politics.
____________________

You fucking moron.
You haven't noticed that we have several posters from places other than the US?

Fucking he'll you're stupid.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-09-14 06:02:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Jews = Eternal Conspirators
- show quoted text -
Corbyn WHO? We have NO such name in US politics.
____________________

You fucking moron.
You haven't noticed that we have several posters from places other than the US?

Fucking hell you're stupid.
Troller In Chief
2018-09-14 16:21:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Jews = Eternal Conspirators
- show quoted text -
Corbyn WHO? We have NO such name in US politics.
____________________
You fucking moron.
You haven't noticed that we have several posters from places other than the US?
Fucking hell you're stupid.
Yeah! Sissy.....

Malcolm McMahon
2018-09-13 15:31:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@hotmail.com
For Anti-Corbyn MPs, Muddling Through Is No Longer Viable
The Guardian - September 3, 2018
-- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/03/anti-corbyn-mps-labour-party-split
I thought the Labour party would be in big trouble as soon as they changed to rules so that activists rather than MPs elected the leader.

Naturally, Labour activists are way to the left of the electorate generally. When MPs chose a leader, they'll look for someone who they consider electable. When activists chose they'll chose someone close to _their_ position. So they'll chose someone well to the left of the median position of the electorate (which is where the votes are).

We had all this before with Militant and Foot, and it led to a long period in opposition.

The nightmare scenario is that, at the next general election, we have a choice between Corbyn and Reese-Mogg, or worse, Boris.

The Monster Raving Loony party might do very well in such and election.
Alex W.
2018-09-14 02:54:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
For Anti-Corbyn MPs, Muddling Through Is No Longer Viable The
Guardian - September 3, 2018 --
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/03/anti-corbyn-mps-labour-party-split
I thought the Labour party would be in big trouble as soon as they
changed to rules so that activists rather than MPs elected the
leader.
Naturally, Labour activists are way to the left of the electorate
generally. When MPs chose a leader, they'll look for someone who they
consider electable. When activists chose they'll chose someone close
to _their_ position. So they'll chose someone well to the left of the
median position of the electorate (which is where the votes are).
Which, incidentally, goes a long way to explaining why American politics
is so predisposed to polarisation. In order to gain the nomination as
candidate, politicians have to be purer and more orthodox than the pope.
Many then find it hard to regain the moderate middle ground.
Kevrob
2018-09-14 12:16:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
For Anti-Corbyn MPs, Muddling Through Is No Longer Viable The
Guardian - September 3, 2018 --
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/03/anti-corbyn-mps-labour-party-split
I thought the Labour party would be in big trouble as soon as they
changed to rules so that activists rather than MPs elected the
leader.
Naturally, Labour activists are way to the left of the electorate
generally. When MPs chose a leader, they'll look for someone who they
consider electable. When activists chose they'll chose someone close
to _their_ position. So they'll chose someone well to the left of the
median position of the electorate (which is where the votes are).
Which, incidentally, goes a long way to explaining why American politics
is so predisposed to polarisation. In order to gain the nomination as
candidate, politicians have to be purer and more orthodox than the pope.
Many then find it hard to regain the moderate middle ground.
Didn't Britain's Trades Union Congress hold an effective veto
over who the Labour party put forward, as late as the late 1970s,
too similar effect?

US political parties do not have the ability to expel members or
groups of members, as Labour did the mid-20th century "Militant
tendency." State election law in Louisiana allowed Klansman
David Duke to run as a nominal Republican, while Bernie Sanders,
a social democrat elected independently in Vermont could have
captured the Democratic Presidential nomination. The fear is that
restoring the right to control its own membership might allow
a party to exclude groups not due to ideology, but on the basis
of race, ethnicity, religion, etc.

As an ally, if no longer a dues-paying member of an ideological,
party, I would rather the state butt out of questions of who can
and can't be an official member. Primary elections where the
state, not the party members or their elected officers, decides
who gets to participate in choosing candidates make mass parties
like the Republicans and Democrats quasi-state entities. The
same could happen to the Libertarians or the Greens if they
became sufficiently popular. There have been cases in New York
state, where cross-endorsement by multiple parties is allowed,
of "minor parties" that declined to run a candidate for an office
having their ballot line "hijacked" by non-members.

http://www.thedailynewsonline.com/bdn06/the-gop-in-the-ny27th-sinks-to-a-new-low-20180424

http://www.gpny.org/defend_our_ballot_line_never_sign_for_otb2

We don't have the deposit system, so the cost for the "fake Green"
or "fake Conservative" can be just whatever expenses are involved
in recruiting volunteers to collect signatures, or, where allowed,
paying signature collectors. There might be legal fees involved
in defending the result in court.

Kevin R
Malcolm McMahon
2018-09-14 13:05:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Alex W.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
For Anti-Corbyn MPs, Muddling Through Is No Longer Viable The
Guardian - September 3, 2018 --
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/03/anti-corbyn-mps-labour-party-split
I thought the Labour party would be in big trouble as soon as they
changed to rules so that activists rather than MPs elected the
leader.
Naturally, Labour activists are way to the left of the electorate
generally. When MPs chose a leader, they'll look for someone who they
consider electable. When activists chose they'll chose someone close
to _their_ position. So they'll chose someone well to the left of the
median position of the electorate (which is where the votes are).
Which, incidentally, goes a long way to explaining why American politics
is so predisposed to polarisation. In order to gain the nomination as
candidate, politicians have to be purer and more orthodox than the pope.
Many then find it hard to regain the moderate middle ground.
Didn't Britain's Trades Union Congress hold an effective veto
over who the Labour party put forward, as late as the late 1970s,
too similar effect?
The did, but they, too, were professional politicians and mostly understood that a compromise between ideology and electability had to be made.
Loading...