Politics of the British Isles

[The Romulan Republic]

You mention alternate ways to have change and Bernie sanders.

Yet, you as a Bernie Sanders supporter, are a woman hating Bernie Bro. You need to apologise for all misogynist abuse you and all your fellow supporters sent Hillary Clinton.

TRR. Why are you the hatred of all women?

It's no surprise that many Bernie supporters did not vote Clinton in the end having been demonised in such a manner, and the realisation that the DNC rigged their election as well turned people off.

This entire article is quite prophetic, especially the comments.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ry-clinton

Yes, their were some Clinton supporters who tried that line of attack during the primary. It was dishonest, cowardly, and disgraceful. Its also, sadly, fairly typical of the kind of nasty mudslinging that happens in a hard-fought campaign.

But that's history. Lately, Bernie's been out doing a unit tour with the new head of the DNC. They may not say it in as many words, but the Democratic Party leadership, by and large, recognizes that they need Bernie, and his supporters. And Bernie is smart enough to recognize that he needs the Democratic Party in kind.

To be frank, I see no purpose in digging up every piece of nasty shit from the primary at this point (much less trying to paint the entire Left or the entire Democratic Party with that brush), other than to drive wedges in the Left for the benefit of the Right. Which I suspect, based on other things you've posted here, is entirely your purpose.

Moreover, the percentage of Bernie supporters who actually went to Trump (not just stayed home or voted third party, but voted for Trump) is very low. And was deliberately played up by pro-Trump media. I would not be surprised if many, or even most, of those who said they were Bernie or Trump were actually paid Trump or Russian trolls/bots, though I regrettably cannot prove that suspicion.

No, the lesson the left needs to learn is to stop calling all their opposition racist / misogynist / xenophobic and using every smear tactic in the book. It doesn't work anymore, people are onto the game now and it doesn't turn people to your side. It turns them against you. Until the left stops name calling and starts dealing with concerns instead of ignoring them they're going to continue falling into irrelevance.

And who determines what is real bigotry that can justifiably be called out, and what isn't? Or do you just think no one should ever point out or criticize bigotry ever, that doing so is just a political tool used by the Left to attack their opponents, as you imply?

In other words, like I said before, you want us to be more respectful of racists'/misogynists'/xenophobes' views. The fact that you apparently don't consider bigotry, discrimination, and xenophobia legitimate concerns is also very telling.

I read this, and what I see is: "Women and minorities need to know their place and not speak up against those who persecute them, because it might offend their delicate feelings."

You don't want to be accused of being a bigot? Then stop making excuses for bigots.

Also, isn't it wonderful how some Right wingers feel entitled to make sweeping pronouncements about the Left as a whole, while complaining about us doing the same to you?

Its funny- the Right spews hatred and vitriol at everyone else, and if anyone complains, well, we're just PC SJWs who need to grow a thicker skin. But God forbid anyone ever say anything critical back.

Free speech is a two-way street. Bigots have the right to be bigots. They do not have the right to immunity from criticism.

Moreover, I frankly find your tone patronizing, and your "advice" disingenuous. You clearly have no sympathy for the Left, and you are not telling us what we need to do in order to be more successful. You are telling us what you want us to do, because it suites your personal views/agenda. I mean, you are essentially arguing that we shouldn't criticize our opponents or speak up for what we believe in, because doing so will turn people against us. To which I say: If we refuse to stand up for anything, what does it matter? We've already lost.

To be blunt, I do not think that you are arguing in good faith. I think you are a Rightist trying to tell Leftists what we "should" do, knowing full well that if we followed your advice, it would amount to capitulation.

Yet all the accusations, the riots, the calls for violence are coming from the left. Not a small insignificant minority to tar the whole with either, the "punch a nazi" meme was supported by the mainstream. That seems to be escalating still.

Prove that "the mainstream" as a whole, however you care to define that, condoned Nazi punching. Prove the claim that all riots and calls for violence are coming from the Left.

Never mind. I know you can't. It is a transparent lie, an attempt to deflect from your own side's incitement of and engagement in violence to paint the opposition as terrorists.

Are their people on the Left who condone and engage in political violence? Yes. Are they in the wrong? Yes.

Is this shit coming only from the Left? NO. Or are you going to tell me that the people who shoot up/bomb abortion clinics are Leftists? That the Bundy gang who seized Federal property by force of arms and threatened to use women and children as human shields, two of whom (from the first incident) committed a mass shooting and one of whom (from the second incident) died resisting law enforcement, were Leftists? That the Right wing politicians and media figures who defended them until Bundy Sr. was outed as a racist were actually Leftists? That the people beating up protesters at Trump rallies while the Orange Rapist egged them on were Leftists (oh, by the way, a judge just refused to throw out a law suite against Trump for inciting violence during the campaign).

I repeat: You are arguing disingenuously.

In the UK, Corbyn's militant Trotsky supporters have been violent against Labour MPs that have spoken out against him. MP Jess Phillips was threatened and had a brick thrown through her window. Others had their cars torched and property damaged.

Source all of these or concede, particularly the claim that Corbyn's supporters are "militant Trotsky". The cries of "COMMUNIST!" hurled by the Right at anyone on the Left got old with McCarthy.

There had been several attempts to reform the E.U. They failed. In fact the constantly inability to change anything in the E.U. system and lack of accountability are major contributors to the reasons for leaving. Put it to Juncker, the head of the E.U. Commission, the lone choice for Commission leader, who personally picked the rest of the Commission, who create all the laws the E.U. have to abide by, said no reforms.

More information from credible sources would be appreciated.

I will add that reform on such a scale takes time, and patience, and hard work. Deciding to throw a tantrum and go home because you didn't get everything you wanted right away is the behaviour of a petulant child.

As to your statement "No denying that a large part of the push for Brexit was outright Xenophobia.". Quantify that. How large, what do you class as Xenophobia? If you can't, then why can't I say Xenophobia was a negligible and insignificant part of the Brexit vote.
A secret ballot, it's a matter of opinion. That makes it very easy to dismiss as a statement.

UKIP and its like don't exactly make a secret of their views on immigrants.

What is a statement of fact is that the opinion polls and the result were 5-7 points out. That's a huge upset. A lot of people who were polled concealed their voting intention until they hit the ballot sheet.

Or one side had better turnout.

[TGLS]

What is a statement of fact is that the opinion polls and the result were 5-7 points out. That's a huge upset. A lot of people who were polled concealed their voting intention until they hit the ballot sheet.

I'm not sure of that. FT's poll of polls had a 48-46 split shortly before the vote, and while the polls after Jo Cox was shot could be tainted by some level of shy Toryism, it's not a 5-7 points difference.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, yes, Jo Cox's murder.

Remind me again? Was that a Leftist who shot her?

[PerrySimm]

I think what we really need to be talking about is how Irish Tea just beat English Tea in a taste test. Can the ramifications of this on British national pride be overstated?

[Fixer]

I'm not sure of that. FT's poll of polls had a 48-46 split shortly before the vote, and while the polls after Jo Cox was shot could be tainted by some level of shy Toryism, it's not a 5-7 points difference.

I was running from my memory of the night and the BBC's exit polls, then waking up in the morning to find the exact opposite result. FT's polling was likely more accurate so, happy to concede the 3-4 point change.

Oh, yes, Jo Cox's murder.

Remind me again? Was that a Leftist who shot her?

Nope. It was a right wing British extremist. It was widely condemned by both sides who stopped campaigning as an act of respect. Which should be the point. Not only was it a vile act that robbed the world of youthful and passionate politician, it shifted the polls drastically after.

This has always been the lesson. Political violence (thread was closed previously so lets please remain civil and on topic here) is not acceptable in a free and democratic society and gives sympathy to the side that was attacked.

Yet, the left has forgotten that lesson. You ask if I can find mainstream support, all I had to do was type in "nazi punch support" into google and the first few pages are filled with links to mainstream sites with support, celebrity links, a guy named Thor Harris giving punching tips on how to hit nazis and Republicans.

I can see a video about some girl who went to a rally saying she was going to cause violence, caught on video throwing bottles, at people with the intent to do harm, wearing a glove made for punching people. CBS makes a spot where she makes a statement making herself out to be a victim, and very statement she makes is contradicted by video evidence.

Why is a major US Network allowing a violent left wing extremist to lie on national television? Why are others telling people to go out and hurt people?

This only gives their opposition the moral high ground, and the escalation here isn't going to turn out well for anyone. A few clicks after that video, it looks like they're now talking about buying concealed knives to sneak into the next protest since they were beaten at that last one. They'e even put their damn logo on the thing.

I wonder, have they stopped for just a moment to consider if they were the baddies.

I think what we really need to be talking about is how Irish Tea just beat English Tea in a taste test. Can the ramifications of this on British national pride be overstated?

Unfair I say! That's a taste test against PG Tips. What about an honest, fair comparison against Twinings English Breakfast

[The Romulan Republic]

I do not and will never condone political violence, or violence for any purpose other than necessity to defend oneself or others. That some on the Left have embraced it appals me, in some ways even more than violence from the Right, because it is a betrayal by my own side, and the greatest threat to any political movement is its own extremists.

However, to claim that the Left as a whole supports political violence is to paint hundreds of millions of people with a very broad brush, to try to vilify half of the political spectrum as terrorists and sympathizers with terrorism. I doubt you would appreciate my characterizing the Right in such a manner.

Nor can you honestly deny that their was a surge in Right wing terrorism in recent years, which many in power largely ignored, if not tacitly supported.

I keep coming back to the Bundy incidents because in that case, we had what amounted to an armed insurrection on Federal land, and it was largely treated with kid gloves. Perhaps necessarily, to avoid a bloodbath, and especially given the presence of innocent children. But its frustrating, because if they had been Muslims, do you honestly think for a moment that they wouldn't have stormed the place with SWATT, if not the National Guard? Or that every Right wing pundit and politician in the country wouldn't have been screaming for blood?

[Fixer]

This isn't a problem with the majority of the left's supporters or those that consider themselves such. Most people in the country are moderates as per usual and simply don't get involved. However it is an issue with both the media, mainstream politics and the majority of popular activists on social media.

Because I honestly believe the left needs to reform, to move away from the dirty name-calling tactics and towards real workable policies which include the common working man's concerns instead of just paying lipservice to them.

In the UK the government needs to be kept in check by a strong opposition, and at the moment it looks like the Tories are going to sweep the board. In the short term this will probably be for the best in handling Brexit negotiations. After that we're looking at business interests and the rich first, while the opposition is broken, infighting, incompetent or downright divorced from reality insulting the people that it should be asking for votes from.

Current state of things, we're looking at a decade of unopposed Conservative rule for the next decade at least.

[The Romulan Republic]

This isn't a problem with the majority of the left. Most people in the country are moderates as per usual and simply don't get involved.

Moderate is not the same as "not involved".

Aside from that, fair enough.

However it is an issue with both the media, mainstream politics and the majority of popular activists on social media.

I would strongly question the contention that it is "the majority of popular activists on social media", and I would advise against overly broad attacks on "the media" (by which, in my experience, people generally mean "media that doesn't agree with me").

Particularly when elements of the Right have been waging a war on the legitimacy of the free press for some time, and with some success.

Because I honestly believe the left needs to reform, to move away from the dirty name-calling tactics and towards real workable policies which include the common working man's concerns instead of just paying lipservice to them.

But unless you wish to contend that their is no such thing as bigotry any more (in which case, you will be arguing a transparently and provably false position), then discussing it is not simply name-calling as a political tactic, and to treat it as such is a disingenuous and insulting misrepresentation.

And if you recognize that it is still a problem... then who are you to say when it is a legitimate problem worth commenting on, and when it is not? Saying "You need to stop talking about this because it offends people if you do", basically comes off as "Shut up and remember your place." And also terribly hypocritical, because you are trying to criticize what people say because because, in part, they are criticizing what other people say.

Nor is it in the Left's interests to be silent on these issues, even if to do so would not be a cowardly abandonment of our principles. It would be a betrayal of many of our supporters, and besides, no one ever won a fight by lying down and rolling over.

Moreover, its not either/or. We can address concerns around prejudice and civil liberties, and the economic concerns of the working class. The only reason their is any conflict between the two is because of dishonest and divisive fear-mongering and scapegoating, which places the blame for our economic problems on foreigners rather than unfettered corporate greed. Its basically a divide and conquer strategy against the Working Class and Middle Class.

In the UK the government needs to be kept in check by a strong opposition, and at the moment it looks like the Tories are going to sweep the board. In the short term this will probably be for the best in handling Brexit negotiations. After that we're looking at business interests and the rich first, while the opposition is broken, infighting, incompetent or downright divorced from reality insulting the people that it should be asking for votes from.

Current state of things, we're looking at a decade of unopposed Conservative rule for the next decade at least.

And if Scotland leaves, you're going to be looking at an even smaller opposition, though its such a disaster that I can hardly fault them for wanting to leave, considering that they stayed on the presumption that they would remain in the EU.

[Fixer]

I would strongly question the contention that it is "the majority of popular activists on social media", and I would advise against overly broad attacks on "the media" (by which, in my experience, people generally mean "media that doesn't agree with me").

Particularly when elements of the Right have been waging a war on the legitimacy of the free press for some time, and with some success.

The biggest war on the legitimacy of the press has been by the press. We're looking at a devolving media which is collapsing due to competition from the internet, poor returns on investment in good reporting and biased, partisan articles getting the most shares on social media (and thus, the best click and ad returns).

I just spotted that same manipulative news report on 2-3 other news sites, pretty much copy pasted with what is in fact, someone's complete fabrication. Either deliberate malice, or complete negligence in due diligence just copy/pasting someone else's article it's just another example that no news story should be readily believed unless it can be collaborated by a primary source you can investigate directly.

But unless you wish to contend that their is no such thing as bigotry any more (in which case, you will be arguing a transparently and provably false position), then discussing it is not simply name-calling as a political tactic, and to treat it as such is a disingenuous and insulting misrepresentation.

And if you recognize that it is still a problem... then who are you to say when it is a legitimate problem worth commenting on, and when it is not? Saying "You need to stop talking about this because it offends people if you do", basically comes off as "Shut up and remember your place." And also terribly hypocritical, because you are trying to criticize what people say because because, in part, they are criticizing what other people say.

Nor is it in the Left's interests to be silent on these issues, even if to do so would not be a cowardly abandonment of our principles. It would be a betrayal of many of our supporters, and besides, no one ever won a fight by lying down and rolling over.

Moreover, its not either/or. We can address concerns around prejudice and civil liberties, and the economic concerns of the working class. The only reason their is any conflict between the two is because of dishonest and divisive fear-mongering and scapegoating, which places the blame for our economic problems on foreigners rather than unfettered corporate greed. Its basically a divide and conquer strategy against the Working Class and Middle Class.

I contend that the left has eroded it's ability to combat these issues politically by crying wolf far too many times. As a result they've been made far less of a concern than the corruption and intent of the person making such a claim. Now when someone calls a person racist, or sexist, or a bigot the first thought is not that this is a person being attacked is actually one of those things but the person doing the shouting is a nasty individual who's best avoided.

Until there is a return to reality, calm debate and rationality the polls are going to keep slipping.

And if Scotland leaves, you're going to be looking at an even smaller opposition, though its such a disaster that I can hardly fault them for wanting to leave, considering that they stayed on the presumption that they would remain in the EU.

Apparently that might not happen. A recent poll showed that 57% of Scotland still wanted to remain in the UK, even though they were against leaving the EU. Strugeon's plummeting approval ratings since the referendum as well mean her rhetoric may be wearing off.

However SNP is still likely going to keep a huge majority Scotland. Remnants of Labour voters tactically switching to SNP simply to keep the Tories out. The Tories are surprisingly polling much better than expected overall, Theresa May having a higher approval rating that Sturgeon but unlikely to win any new seats.

[The Romulan Republic]

And you continue to engage in sweeping generalizations about the media and the Left that, frankly, sound like they come right out of Trumpian propaganda (well, in fairness, the Donald would probably phrase them less articulately).

It is no doubt true that some people have made exaggerated claims of prejudice and bigotry, weather out of malice, in genuine error, or out of frustration/a desire to adopt a strong stance on an important issue.

However, that does not justify dismissing all such accusations without regard for evidence or the specifics of the circumstances. This is at best intellectually lazy, and at worst dishonest. And it sounds very much like a self-reinforcing position: You are inclined to assume that any accusation of bigotry is malicious and false, which reinforces your tendency to think badly of anyone who raises such concerns, which makes it more likely that you will dismiss any future allegations of discrimination as well.

Nor do I buy the Right wing narrative that the "victory" of Trump and Brexit is a backlash against "political correctness" or womens'/minorities' rights activism (I put "victory" in quotes because Trump did not actually win the popular vote). Keep in mind that more voters voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump by nearly three million, and neither got a majority, so the outcome of the election cannot be fairly treated as a popular endorsement or repudiation of anything, and if it could, its more an endorsement of the Left than a repudiation, if you go by public opinion. And given that both votes were relatively close (especially the US election), their are potentially any number of factors where, had one or two things gone just slightly differently, it might have changed the outcome. Trying to attribute those results simply to a backlash against the Left's support for Social Justice is an agenda-driven argument, not a fact-based one. It amounts to an attempt to delegitimize civil rights campaigners, to dismiss them as irrelevant, and to basically say "You need to shut up and know your place."

In which case, again... if the only way we can "win" is to shut up and concede the debate... well, then, we might as well go down swinging. No one ever won a fight by surrendering.

I mean, you appear to be essentially saying "If the Left wants to win, it needs to start saying what the Right approves of it saying." In which case, we become our enemies, or at any rate a paper opposition, an opposition in name only.

Also... you can't have it both ways.

If the surge in Right wing populism is not based in bigotry, but in economic concerns, then it cannot be taken as a repudiation of Left wing positions on civil rights.

If it is a repudiation of Left wing views on civil rights, then that reinforces the belief that it was motivated primarily by bigotry.