• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

AND HERE WE GO - THE 2019 GENERAL ELECTION THREAD

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 18645
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Liverpoolphil said:
But I don’t know the reasons why people keep calling him appalling ? It’s just an insult at the moment with no substance behind it. No reasons have been given - just a statement of apparent fact. I just asked why he is supposed to be an “appalling person “ - I asked the same question the other day and the poster admitted that he had gone over the top and it’s was based just on not agreeing with his beliefs.

You even asked the same question yourself - is he really an “appalling man”


The only person that will know will be Corbyn himself - there hasn’t been enough information about these “meetings” - some day it started the process of peace off. Why else would a pacifist meet terrorists ? What was his reasons beyond trying to find a way to get peace ?

For me I don’t believe he had a mandate to look for peace talks but it was his beliefs that made him look for a way - right or wrong ? Who knows
Click to expand...

If he was really looking for peace talks why is it that he only ever met one side? You can't negotiate peace between two parties if you are only meeting with one of them.
 
Hobbit said:
"Is he appalling?"

Your definition of whats appalling isn't someone else's. Its that simple. You arguing it to the nth degree doesn't change whether you're right or Chris is right. You're only defining what you believe is or isn't appalling.

Here's an off the cuff thought; why not respect Chris's opinion of Corbyn, which you can do without agreeing with it. Corbyn is, after all, an extreme left wing politician who admires the way Venezuela is run. That's not far short of appalling to me.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you miss the point

someone made a statement “Corbyn really is an appalling person” - calling someone appalling is derogatory

So I asked “Why is Corbyn an appalling person “ - that’s all , nothing else just a simple question

I thought if someone posted such a statement of fact then they would be able to provide why the see Jeremy Corbyn as an appalling person but the response was nothing but deflection away from the statement and instead pointing fingers at me. Nothing was argued about what someone deems appalling because they didn’t actually say why they see him as appalling.

Is that what it has got to now with these threads where you can’t ask a question in regards someone making a statement , i didn’t say he was wrong or challenge his opinion - I just asked why

But when someone just deflects and avoids that to me speaks volumes and I suspect if I went through the thread there will be lots of it all over the place.

That’s social media now - I see it all over Facebook and Twitter , derogatory remarks ( Abbott being a big target ) , loads of these “funny” memes etc

No one actually getting to a sensible debate about the merits of this policy over another policy. It’s just a complete mess.
 
ColchesterFC said:
If he was really looking for peace talks why is it that he only ever met one side? You can't negotiate peace between two parties if you are only meeting with one of them.
Click to expand...

Quite correct!

Why did he take 2 convicted IRA members to Parliament only 2 weeks after the Brighton bombing?
 
ColchesterFC said:
If he was really looking for peace talks why is it that he only ever met one side? You can't negotiate peace between two parties if you are only meeting with one of them.
Click to expand...

Northern Ireland politics was/is a lot more complicated and certainly more than just two sides.

As I said who knows what went on in these meetings

But if it wasn’t trying to find a way to start peace off what else would Corbyn be meeting them for ?

And it was also well known that the government at the time were also keeping back channels open to the IRA
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ColchesterFC said:
If he was really looking for peace talks why is it that he only ever met one side? You can't negotiate peace between two parties if you are only meeting with one of them.
Click to expand...
He met both sides, Mo Mowlam used him as a contact for both sides and he was praised by Ian Paisley for his role in the Peace Process.
 
Corbyn was never authorised by anyone to make contact and look for Peace with the IRA, yes other Politicians held secret meetings, but they were instructed to by the Government of the day.
Only he can state his motive and the reasons he took part in the 2 minute silences etc.
He was then used by Blair and Mo Mowlam as a go between in the Goid Friday agreement.
I have my doubts about him and his motives on many issues and look forward to the day he steps down as leader of the Labour Party, but there is a lot of misinformation about him out there and on some issues he’s badly failed to help himself.
 
Cherry13 said:
Out of interest. who is voting based on there local candidate, rather than the leader of the party?
Click to expand...
Me, Not been easy as I’ve voted for an independent in local elections, but they have not put anyone forward for the GE.
 
Liverpoolphil said:
What’s wrong ? Is that all you can answer ? You are very vocal against Corbyn and Labour which is your right but surely when someone ask for reasons why you call someone “appalling” you must have them to hand ? No ?

I’ll help you out -

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/music3/707-bruce-springsteen-the-wall

Below are Mr Waugh-Monger's ten commandments telling UK electors why they should not, under any circumstances, vote for Jeremy Corbyn.

1. Jeremy Corbyn wants to 'stop the war'.

Jeremy Corbyn opposed the bombing of Yugoslavia. He opposed the invasion of Afghanistan. He was against the invasion of Iraq. He was against bombing Libya and also voted against military action in Syria.

I ask you – is this the sort of man who is fit to be prime minister?

If Corbyn – heaven forbid – had been British Prime Minister in 2003 he would not have committed British troops to the invasion of Iraq. Just imagine what would have happened if we hadn't invaded Iraq! Well, I'll tell you what would have happened – the Middle East would now be a haven for terrorist groups which would be targeting British tourists on beaches when they go on their summer holidays. The whole Middle East would now be in turmoil. We'd be facing a refugee crisis with people fleeing all the countries that we hadn't destabilized.

2. Jeremy Corbyn is a dangerous leftist.

Just look at the sort of policies this man supports. He wants to re-nationalize the railways which have the highest fares in Europe.

He wants to scrap university tuition fees which consign students to a lifetime of debt. He would like to make housing affordable for ordinary people.

He wants an economy to suit the needs of the majority and not the 1%.

He wants to keep the Sunday trading laws as they are and not introduce 24/7 shopping. He is opposed to illegal wars which kill hundreds of thousands of people and he does not want to bring back fox-hunting. Quite clearly the man is some kind of left-wing nutcase.

3. Jeremy Corbyn has been critical of the US and Israel.

Outrageously, Corbyn has criticized US foreign policy and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. He seems to think that the US and Israel have to abide by international law – and should be held accountable for their actions. The man is quite obviously a communist and as such should not become Britain's prime minister.

4. Jeremy Corbyn has extremist links.

Not only is Corbyn a dangerous radical himself, he also associates with dangerous extremists. He once spoke at a meeting where one of the other speakers had once shared a platform with a speaker who had once shared a platform with a speaker who had once shared a platform with a speaker who had once praised Joseph Stalin – proving undeniably that Corbyn is a Stalinist.

Also on Twitter, Corbyn once retweeted a person who had once retweeted another person who had once retweeted another person who had retweeted a tweet from someone who I don't approve of – proving once again Corby's extremism.

5. Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable.

Jeremy Corbyn wants to do things which the majority of the British public wants, such as re-nationalize the railways and keep Britain out of Middle East wars. This makes him unelectable because politicians are only electable if they want to do things the public doesn't want.

At the last election, Labour lost heavily to the anti-austerity SNP in Scotland and also lost lots of votes to the anti-austerity Greens. So it's obvious that to get these votes back, Labour needs a leader who supports austerity, and not someone who opposes it, like Corbyn.

I'm a very wealthy right-wing, pro-austerity warmonger, but believe me, I only want the best for Labour – which is to be a right-wing pro-austerity, pro-war party – barely distinguishable from the Tories.

Having two main parties who have identical views on the main issues is what democracy is all about. Corbyn as Labour leader will be very different from the Conservatives, which would obviously be very bad for democracy as it would give the electorate a real choice.

6. Jeremy Corbyn wants to take us back to the 1970s.

In the 1970s the gap between the rich and poor was at its lowest in the UK's history. Living standards for ordinary people were rising all the time and large sections of the economy were in public ownership. The banks did not run the country and the taxation system was steeply progressive.

Corbyn wants to take us back to these times! Think how disastrous that would be for rich people like me who would have to pay much higher rates of tax which would be redistributed to horrible working class-type people and people on middle incomes. The 1% would really suffer and the most talented people – like myself – and my neocon friends, would leave the country. That's what lies in store for us if Corbyn succeeds!

7. Jeremy Corbyn would leave Britain defenseless and open to invasion.

Corbyn has promised to scrap Trident.

If Trident was scrapped there's no doubt that the Russians, Iranians, Syrians and Hezbollah would launch a full scale invasion of Britain within 45 minutes.

Britain would be carved up between the 'Axis of Evil', with the Russians taking England, the Iranians Scotland and the Syrians, Wales (and Hezbollah in charge of Northern Ireland).

Just imagine, Aberystywyth under the control of the evil dictator Bashar al-Assad. Russian troops patroling the streets of Godalming. Iran's Revolutionary Guard marching in Sauchiehall Street. A nightmare scenario indeed, but all this would be the reality if Corbyn gets his way. The very future of our country is at stake.

8. Jeremy Corbyn once welcomed an article by John Pilger.

In 2004, Jeremy Corbyn was one of 25 MPs who signed an Early Day Motion which welcomed a Pilger article on Kosovo.

How outrageous! To think, a man who is now the leader of one of Britain's major parties once welcomed an article by John Pilger!

No one who has ever cited John Pilger with approval – let alone signed a motion supporting him – should be allowed to stand for high public office in Britain. The freedom to hold and express views and opinions in a democracy should only apply to opinions and views that myself and fellow elite neocons approve of! And we most certainly do not approve of John Pilger!

9. Jeremy Corbyn opposes austerity.

Austerity is working brilliantly at the moment.

It's provided a great excuse for the government to flog off remaining state assets at below their true market value to 'the right people' in the City. The welfare payments of lower-class people who have far too many children are being cut. Libraries and local authority services are being closed. Yet, guess what? The bearded one opposes all of this. He says that "austerity is a political choice, not an economic necessity."

He wants to protect public services and libraries from cuts – and instead wants to crackdown on tax evasion and increase taxes on the very wealthy! I ask you – is this the sort of man we want leading Labour – or worse still, the country?

And finally, but most importantly, the tenth commandment:

10. Jeremy Corbyn is very popular.

...And if he succeeds, it's game over for me and my little clique of elite warmongers. We won't get our wars and we'll have to pay more taxes and it'll be all perfectly horrible! So, don't vote for Jeremy Corbyn, because although he'll be very good news for you – his success will be terrible for us!


Such an appalling person ?
Click to expand...

Since you seem to be suffering from selective memory tonight have a little reminder why most decent British people find him appalling...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1143861403092246528
 
chrisd said:
If you say so Paul

But why did he do what I said?
Click to expand...
I don’t get the flippant remark mate, it’s a sensible discussion and easily googled.

Again Chris I could only repeat the reason he gave, do I believe him? Not sure in all honesty.
They were convicted IRA members who’d claimed to have put violence behind them and moved in to politics.

I would certainly agree the timing was a shocker.
 
Liverpoolphil said:
Sorry but you miss the point

someone made a statement “Corbyn really is an appalling person” - calling someone appalling is derogatory

So I asked “Why is Corbyn an appalling person “ - that’s all , nothing else just a simple question

I thought if someone posted such a statement of fact then they would be able to provide why the see Jeremy Corbyn as an appalling person but the response was nothing but deflection away from the statement and instead pointing fingers at me. Nothing was argued about what someone deems appalling because they didn’t actually say why they see him as appalling.

Is that what it has got to now with these threads where you can’t ask a question in regards someone making a statement , i didn’t say he was wrong or challenge his opinion - I just asked why

But when someone just deflects and avoids that to me speaks volumes and I suspect if I went through the thread there will be lots of it all over the place.

That’s social media now - I see it all over Facebook and Twitter , derogatory remarks ( Abbott being a big target ) , loads of these “funny” memes etc

No one actually getting to a sensible debate about the merits of this policy over another policy. It’s just a complete mess.
Click to expand...
Please stop being a drama queen. This is a golf forum where a number of people like to express opinions and views that sometimes have contradictions sometimes gut feelings, sometimes deep convictions and sometimes thought provoking or thoughtless provoking or even very subjective statements because they have some time on their hands and have decided to vent their frustrations/asperations/felisitations/whatever. If you feel like joining in then do so, otherwise dont. Its best if people are respectful to each other but as they often are not then there may be spates of virtual fisticuffs to which the ref may blow his whistle or send to the sinbin.
Its not compulsory reading and if someone thinks Corbers or Boris is a Twazzock and you disagree then explain why but please stop the saintimonious castigation routine. By all means despair at the depraved depths golf forums and social media in general have descended to , even have a self flagulatory rant now and then but please stop being so precious.
 
Fade and Die said:
Since you seem to be suffering from selective memory tonight have a little reminder why most decent British people find him appalling...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1143861403092246528
Click to expand...

Rather generic dont you think ?

So decent people find him appalling because Theresa May says he doesn’t back Britain ?
pauldj42 said:
I don’t get the flippant remark mate, it’s a sensible discussion and easily googled.

Again Chris I could only repeat the reason he gave, do I believe him? Not sure in all honesty.
They were convicted IRA members who’d claimed to have put violence behind them and moved in to politics.

I would certainly agree the timing was a shocker.
Click to expand...

His timing was poor , something that he has done many times in the past and will do.

Labour won’t win an election whilst he is the leader

Not because of his policy’s or the manifestos or their beliefs but because of him and his choices in the shadow cabinet

Corbyn has held his seat for a long time and they seem happy with him but his public image is poor - ever since he became leader he has been battered ( rightly or wrongly ) from pillar to post with everything from his apparent “Terrorist Sympathies” to having wonky glasses , over the decades he has made some proper media own goals despite what appears to be good intentions. The fact he won this peace award is largely ignored.

Johnson is very lucky - a stronger labour leader would have Johnson out on his arse now.
 
pauldj42 said:
I don’t get the flippant remark mate, it’s a sensible discussion and easily googled.

Again Chris I could only repeat the reason he gave, do I believe him? Not sure in all honesty.
They were convicted IRA members who’d claimed to have put violence behind them and moved in to politics.

I would certainly agree the timing was a shocker.
Click to expand...

I certainly didn't intend anything to be flippant Paul and if you read it as such I apologise
 
Liverpoolphil said:
Sorry but you miss the point

someone made a statement “Corbyn really is an appalling person” - calling someone appalling is derogatory

So I asked “Why is Corbyn an appalling person “ - that’s all , nothing else just a simple question

I thought if someone posted such a statement of fact then they would be able to provide why the see Jeremy Corbyn as an appalling person but the response was nothing but deflection away from the statement and instead pointing fingers at me. Nothing was argued about what someone deems appalling because they didn’t actually say why they see him as appalling.

Is that what it has got to now with these threads where you can’t ask a question in regards someone making a statement , i didn’t say he was wrong or challenge his opinion - I just asked why

But when someone just deflects and avoids that to me speaks volumes and I suspect if I went through the thread there will be lots of it all over the place.

That’s social media now - I see it all over Facebook and Twitter , derogatory remarks ( Abbott being a big target ) , loads of these “funny” memes etc

No one actually getting to a sensible debate about the merits of this policy over another policy. It’s just a complete mess.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you miss the point also. And its quite a fundamental point which you often miss when debating. He answered you. You didn't like his answer but he answered you. He even defined what you would do, which you are doing now. You are looking to break it down to your version of what the structure of the answer should look like. Sorry but how he answers is his choice. And it isn't a statement of fact, as you say, its an opinion.

If someone says, "that's a horse," its definitive. You can argue a definitive, yes it is, no it isn't. And the answer is an absolute. If someone says its an appalling horse, you can argue it is or it isn't but neither can be proven right or wrong. Why? Because "appalling" is subjective.

And you saying its a statement of fact so that you can argue it definitively right or wrong kinda looks a little silly.
 
Nothing personal to anyone, I’m out this thread.
What ever the result come friday morning, I genuinely believe it will get no better over the next 3-5yrs regardless of who wins.
I don’t know how it will (if ever) be resolved.
I just don’t see either of the main parties being positive for the nation as a whole or bringing it together, even in a small way.
 
pauldj42 said:
Nothing personal to anyone, I’m out this thread.
What ever the result come friday morning, I genuinely believe it will get no better over the next 3-5yrs regardless of who wins.
I don’t know how it will (if ever) be resolved.
I just don’t see either of the main parties being positive for the nation as a whole or bringing it together, even in a small way.
Click to expand...


How about an alternative view Paul

Boris gets a working majority and we leave the EU 31st January
We agree a Canada ++ deal inside a year
We sort out some tariff free deals to take up supply of expensive EU products
We run our own country
Labour get rid of Corbyn, McDonnell etc al, so become a proper opposition who could govern
Boris proves the naysayers wrong and runs the country well
Scotland tell Wee Krankie that they'd rather not leave the Union as it's doing very well
Trump loses his election

Alls well with the world
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top