1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll: General Election 2019 voting intention - Dec 1st - 7th

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Rilot, Dec 2, 2019.

?

Who will you vote for?

  1. Brexit

    5 vote(s)
    1.5%
  2. Conservative

    96 vote(s)
    29.4%
  3. DUP

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Green

    2 vote(s)
    0.6%
  5. Labour

    113 vote(s)
    34.7%
  6. Liberal Democrat

    84 vote(s)
    25.8%
  7. Plaid Cymru

    1 vote(s)
    0.3%
  8. Sinn Fein

    1 vote(s)
    0.3%
  9. SNP

    12 vote(s)
    3.7%
  10. TIG

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  11. UKIP

    1 vote(s)
    0.3%
  12. Other party

    4 vote(s)
    1.2%
  13. Independant

    3 vote(s)
    0.9%
  14. Spoil ballott

    4 vote(s)
    1.2%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tony Edwards

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 4, 2018

    Posts: 4,046

    Of course I condemn antisemitism what a stupid question. Do you condemn islamaphobia in the Tory party and Brexit party? Oh and anti semitism and other racism.
     
  2. danlightbulb

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jul 14, 2005

    Posts: 2,482

    Which would make millions worse off.

    Just taking myself as an example, my basic living costs (allowing for housing, transport, food but excluding any luxuries) is almost exactly the real living wage value of £17k a year. I could be paid the UBI and just survive.

    But from my job I would lose £600 per month take home from a UBI threshold of £17k and a flat tax rate of 60%. Thats huge. Its pretty much my whole buffer for luxury items and saving for my own house. All wiped out.

    Its just not implementable.
     
  3. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 45,874

    Why is it racist?
     
  4. Murphy

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 3,360

    Ok so we agree in parts, but what we seem to disagree on is where the unnecessary categorisations of people is, what I'm saying is that there's already categorisations within society so compensating for that is not discrimination, it's simply trying to put everyone on an equal footing to begin with, the unnecessary categorisations of people is there from the start of your life, it's there in where your born, who your born to, where you grow up, or even if you have dangly bits between your legs.

    I'd like to see two couple with one child between them. ;) Seriously though yes it should because a child born to someone like JRM, for example, will have a distinct advantage over a child born to Wayne and Waynetta Slob.
     
  5. Tony Edwards

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 4, 2018

    Posts: 4,046

    Exactly!
     
  6. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 24,180

    It empowers from a position of responsibility the people who are racist, you could say that doesn't mean much, but 'we live in a society' comes to mind, unironically. Racists don't care about minutia after all, all they see is their views being agreed with by an important figure, with very little sensitivity or solution, just moan about it to sell papers... that's all he's really cared about.

    He's a shotgun in a China-shop, he never cared about any real serious discussion on the matter, instead opting for immature language because it's easier.
     
  7. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 45,874

    So what? If the view itself is valid then...
     
  8. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 24,180

    It's not the view, it's how the view is told that changes whether it's just roughshod rhetoric or a serious criticism with a desire to see the rights of women in Islam expanded.
     
  9. Tony Edwards

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 4, 2018

    Posts: 4,046

    This is what your dear leader said about Boris and the Tories.
    Still not convinced?
     
  10. Usher

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 30, 2004

    Posts: 3,202

    Because Labour actually have an animal welfare manifesto which also includes the quote ' Our vision is one where no animal is made to suffer unnecessary pain and degradation'
     
  11. Usher

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 30, 2004

    Posts: 3,202

    Racist is the 'in' word but apparently now just decrees which religion you belong to and not your actual race, you could be a white European Muslim wearing the letterbox garb could you not?
     
  12. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 45,874

    Convinced about what?

    So because he's used his usual writing style when penning the column then it's bad?

    It was a critique of the clothing.
     
  13. Tony Edwards

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 4, 2018

    Posts: 4,046

    It seems like the Green party might tick a few boxes for you guys.

    https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/green-party-accused-muslim-bashing-17336741
    I am against halal slaughter BTW just as I am against all animal slaughter.
    Round and round we go. Where it stops nobody knows.
     
  14. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 45,874

    So again - why was it racist? Do you believe it was racist?

    Are you able to put forth a view here? Currently it isn't too clear... aside from you wanting to throw it in as a bit of deflection from the video I posted.
     
  15. Tony Edwards

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 4, 2018

    Posts: 4,046

    Do I believe it was dog whistle racism? Yes I do and you should recognise it as such. Especialy as you are so vocal about Labours antisemitism.

    Would you accept it was racism if it was said by a well known racist?
     
  16. robgmun

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 30, 2006

    Posts: 15,638

    Location: London

    The bizarre thing it's not even islamophobic

    The Burka isn't a prescribed Islamic dress and nowhere in the Koran does it say to cover your face, the Hijab yes, but not the Burka. It's just a garment used in certain cultures. It's at worst bigoted, but not racist or islamophobic, heck the article was against the Burtka because he wanted women to choose what they want to wear and reject being covered up in such a way, but taking that article in context is inconvenient to the left who want to paint a certain picture
     
  17. Murphy

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 3,360

    I am, can i join in. :)

    Was what Johnson wrote in the article a preconceived opinion that was not based on reason or actual experience? Sure seemed that way to me.
     
  18. GordyR

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 1, 2003

    Posts: 5,300

    Location: Essex

    It was quite clearly a culturally racist dog whistle. It was a reasonably mild example, but a racist dog whistle all the same.

    It would be the equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn making a negative joke about Jews wearing the Kippah in order to appeal to antisemites within the Labour Party.

    Would you be staunchly defending Jeremy Corbyn if he had done that? In fact, could you imagine what the press would have made of it?

    I deplore this kind of thing wherever it's found. Picking and choosing who to defend or condemn based upon tribal lines is the height of hypocrisy in my view.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2019
  19. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 45,874

    Well not really and you have to make an assumption that it was designed to appeal to racists in the first place rather than just Boris simply putting forth his views in his usual manner. Wearing a Kipped doesn't act as a barrier to communication.
     
  20. robgmun

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 30, 2006

    Posts: 15,638

    Location: London

    Again, context is king here.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.