Printable version of thread

Posted by: vidcapper 10th January 2018, 11:54 AM

I prefer the latter, in the form of coalitions, which is also why I prefer proportional voting systems. It prevents any one party becoming too dominant

Posted by: Popchartfreak 10th January 2018, 02:17 PM

You omitted "Both" as an option.

Co-operation because it's sensible and gets more done with more agreement, and adversarial when you have an unreasonable position that can't be watered down by negotiation and reason.

Posted by: Suedehead2 10th January 2018, 02:45 PM

Much of the way the UK works is based on confrontation. It's not just politics (reinforced buy the electoral system), the same applies to the judicial process when so much can rest on which side can afford the more expensive lawyers.

Posted by: vidcapper 10th January 2018, 03:16 PM

Perhaps one of the moderators can add 'both' as a choice then?

But some 'unreasonable' positions are populist positions that a only a minority consider unreasonable. The question must be : Who decides what is unreasonable? For me, it should not be who complains loudest in leftist media.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 10th January 2018, 08:28 PM

Unreasonable, say, for example, when you are looking after a physically disabled father, a mentally disabled mother, have a job and get absolutely no help or assistance or sympathy from the local Council, the NHS and the care system in general, despite having parents who are not wealthy. Think that's pretty much a case where negotiation isn't an option as the Tories are intent on making it even worse than it already is. Twice in the last 3 weeks I have had to call ambulances ( I was right both times that my father needed admission, and the ambulance staff were wrong on one occasion - private staff, hired by the struggling local services, felt he didn't. He is currently in hospital yet again having been let out too early, so I know more about serious illness than they do)

I will fight the heartless Tories to the ends of the earth because there is no happy compromise when your family is at risk of death and your life is devoted to care, with NOTHING for me in any sense whatsoever, no money (just a reduced wage out of necessity), "leisure" time devoted entirely to posting on here to stay sane, and a shruggy shoulder attitude about "whaddya do bout it" as if it is just bad luck and not a dereliction of political duty.

So yes, I trust the leftist media hasnt brainwashed me into just whinging about me over-reacting to, let me be absolutely clear here, life and death situations that I deal with. The Tories and Jeremy c**t in particular can go f*** themselves to Hell, because they don't care. Not a bit.

You may notice I feel quite strongly about the NHS. As do many others. Not a minority.

Posted by: Suedehead2 10th January 2018, 09:19 PM

That where the Tories just don't seem to get it. They will happily pay for their contents insurance and will expect to be able to claim on it if they are burgled. If they take out a life assurance policy and die soon afterwards, they will expect the company to pay out, subject to some perfectly reasonable checks. They will expect the company to pay the full amount even if only one or two premiums have been collected (unless there was a specific clause limiting the payout in the first few years).

The Tories don't seem to accept that tax and National Insurance operate on the same principle. We pay our tax and NI in the expectation that, if we need to, we can claim help. They just act like the most unscrupulous insurance company in constantly finding new ways of not paying out.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 10th January 2018, 09:51 PM

I'm not a huge fan of majority governments pushing through their agenda without much thought about other points of view. I have my concerns about the last session of the ScotParl for that reason. This is where adversarial comes in handy.

However more often in the UK it feels like it's needlessly partisan. Arguing for the sake of it and not with the aim of actually making a positive difference. Good adversarial in my mind should always lead to co-operation and the best for the country.

Posted by: vidcapper 11th January 2018, 06:33 AM

I'm guessing they all have private medical anyway.

Maybe if they were forced to rely on the NHS, like most of us, they would see that it got better funded...

Posted by: vidcapper 26th February 2018, 09:07 AM

I hoped that 'no preference' would kinda cover that.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 26th February 2018, 02:15 PM

My preference is co-operation, but also confrontational when faced with unreasonable unresolvable situations. "adversarial" makes it sound like war, when it's just standing up for what's right.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 26th February 2018, 04:45 PM

Tories are a super right wing landed gentry party right now.

No cooperation.

Tories OUT OUT OUT

Their vile alt right views should be consigned to the dust bin of history. Failing that, kept out of power. No co-operation.

Posted by: Iz 26th February 2018, 05:16 PM

^Really? I'm no fan but we all know that sort of polemic doesn't help anyone.

Why even bring left/right alignment into that? Everyone can (and does) complain loud.

But anyway, looks like John defined what was unreasonable, that's not the sort of thing they make laws about.

My preference is co-operation, it's ridiculous how the duality of left and right now makes everyone think they must self-define to one side or the other before considering how to help the situation. Adversarial politics, if we must have it should be a strong opposition working a government that's on one side towards the middle ground.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 26th February 2018, 05:24 PM

They don't represent us. They are capitalists, rich beyond belief, landlords. They represent their vested interests.

They should be nowhere near power.

Cooperation with them is detrimental to the 99%.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th February 2018, 06:54 AM

You have very a 18th Century view of the Tory party!

I am always accused of having an unrealistic view of Brexit - yet I don't see a lot of realism in the way you perceive the 21st C Tory party.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th February 2018, 07:10 AM

But only one side suffers 'trial by social media' when they voice their opinions. This leads to a reluctance to express themselves openly, instead preferring the ballot box - which is why results like Brexit, and Trump's election as POTUS are such a huge shock to the system.



I dislike that situation too - there is no party that caters to my combination of left-leaning economics, and right-leaning social ideas.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th February 2018, 12:48 PM

there is no "trial by social media" that favours either side. There are plenty of over-reacting loons on both sides, but especially the bullying far right who advocate slavery and murder and you defend the right to voice those opinions (so hypocrite much that you moan about it, then support it)..

the vast numbers of rational arguments don't come from extremists, and they far outnumber the loons.

Posted by: vidcapper 27th February 2018, 03:02 PM

Maybe that's true, but you only *hear* about it being done by one side.




Must I quote Voltaire again?

For me, there's no incompatibility between condemning the actions they advocate, while accepting their right to say them.

Posted by: Suedehead2 27th February 2018, 06:58 PM

I suggest you branch out a little on social media. Just try looking at some of the things said about Dianne Abbott. At least the likes of Boris Johnson tend to be attacked for their opinions rather than their appearance.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 27th February 2018, 07:06 PM

You only hear about one side because the mail only choses to report one side.

Posted by: Shia LeMuffQueef 27th February 2018, 07:10 PM

Lol x

It is YOU with the wrong opinion.

They haven't changed since feudal times.

It is still the capitalistic class profiting off other people's labour with a small l.

Look at the current crop, 250£ million gay/ woman hating Mogg, who also went and enjoyed a luncheon with an extreme right wing group who want to 'repatriate' anyone who is not completely white.



The ACTUAL state

Posted by: Popchartfreak 27th February 2018, 08:11 PM

No, YOU only hear one side of it. As Suedey says, when you are involved in sane sources you see where the real demented people are, and they are far more often far right. Left-wing people dont as a rule murder politicians, advocate slavery and genocide, try to remove the vote from people and lie incessantly about everything.

SOME lefties have intolerant attitudes or their own pet peeves which dont justify it - being liberal is not a heinous crime for a start, nor is being Jewish, a woman, or gay - but when you hear of a shooter having just murdered a bunch of schoolchildren you just KNOW he's going to be right-wing (and it's always a he, and invariably a white he).

Facts you choose to ignore, as you always choose to ignore anything that doesn't fit your world-view.

Voltaire. Quote Solitaire if you like. You can't fight for people's right to be allowed to say anything and then whinge about a selective few who you don't agree with while ignoring those that are truly truly pernicious. That's being hypocritical.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th February 2018, 07:35 AM

You're not seriously suggesting that any gaffes she makes should be ignored, because drawing attention to them would be racist?




How did I guess that you'd say something like that?

You too.

I resent the implication that I think it's OK for someone to 'go postal', as long as they are *right-wing* loons!

Do you honestly think that mass shootings don't appall me as much as they do you?



From the context, I assume you have specific examples in mind? If so, would you mind listing them?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th February 2018, 01:00 PM

1. Nobody suggested that.
2. Because it's true.
3. I read widely and see what is being said widely, yuo admit you don't. Why are you surprised we pick up on that and comment accordingly?
4. There is no implication. I'm just stating facts so you stop making blase vague anti-left statements with no basis to them. Not calling you anything or saying you support or are involved in anything like it. Thought that was fairly clear, but if not, happy to confirm that here. That you choose not to publicly condemn all the many right-wing cases of injustice is a matter for you, but it undermines your credibility as a fair-minded observer of reality.
5. I'm not going to start repeating heinous twitter users and give them more publicity on here, but they exist if you want to go and search for them. Alternatively just follow Donald Trump, he has an endless supply of hateful, racist, callous lies on a daily basis. If you mean an example of you being selective, just read through your recent posts and then read through everyone's response to them. You do a lot of digs for trivial stuff, but don't post topics like:

Is it right for the Ku Klux Klan to want all black people dead or enslaved?

Obviously it would be a very short thread and pointless (the answer is No, no discussion required) and I've taken an extreme example, but you have a habit of not condemning far right actions.

What one doesn't say sheds light on what one does say, and if people make assumptions you dont care for it's very easy to correct those wrong impressions with a single sentence amongst the many you type each day. Not difficult, and nothing to be ashamed of - except you seem to think it undermines your other arguments (which it doesn't, it strengthens them) to condemn a far-right loon for some views because he or she may also hold other views you agree with. It doesn't work like that....

Posted by: Iz 28th February 2018, 01:17 PM

Agreed with everything you say John.

This statement of vid's, that it is only the left who instigate 'online trials', as if that means anything and right print and news media don't instigate their own far more dangerous and damning trials on a weekly basis, might have had a slim chance of making a point a few years ago. But not now. Twitter, some subreddits, 4chan, virtually anywhere where Trump supporters, Brexit supporters and anywhere else hang out in droves is filled with attacks on the 'unreasonable left' and laughing at the stupidity of 'liberals' (again forgetting that liberal generally means a much more centrist view than what they think). If anything it's the left who DON'T currently have the power to limit the spectrum of discussion.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th February 2018, 03:05 PM

1. Then how does one go about calling her out on gaffes *without* being accused of racism?

3. Yes, I mainly read the Mail, but you've surely seen me post URL's from the Guardian, and I read from other sources too - I just don't make an issue of them.

It's that people automatically assume the worst of me unless I make a specific statement otherwise, that bugs me. I doubt anyone else here feels obliged to make such a statement every time they comment on a new issue, so why should that be required of me?

Posted by: Suedehead2 28th February 2018, 03:20 PM

If you actually read what I said, you will have noticed that I said that the likes of Johnson are criticised fro what they say and do. All too often, Dianne Abbott is not. She is frequently criticised for her appearance and not just her colour. As other threads here have made clear, her gaffes frequently get blown up out of all proortion while much bigger gaffes by other politicians are either ignored completely or laughed off.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th February 2018, 03:34 PM

But how often is that done by anyone other than far-right loonies on social media? Even the Mail wouldn't be as blatant as them!

Posted by: Suedehead2 28th February 2018, 04:03 PM

You said, and I quote "But only one side suffers 'trial by social media' when they voice their opinions.". I merely pointed out that your assertion was not true. I can also add that there are plenty of people on social media slamming Corbyn's latest EU speech.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th February 2018, 04:38 PM

OK, you got me there - but I don't think it happens equally from both sides.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th February 2018, 09:14 PM

Because on most issues most people make statements in support of/or against just because it's wrong or right, not because it toes a party-line. Whether you like it or not your views frequently end up supporting the rights of people who advocate evil and not taking the side of those who are the victims of it. We know your views on free speech, you don't ever need to voice it again. Instead you can take that we hear your viewpoint, don't agree with it, and instead get on with condemning the opinions and actions of those people and take it as read that you will always have the proviso that "I support their right to say it".

Posted by: vidcapper 1st March 2018, 07:05 AM

I have repeatedly condemned the actions of those advocate evil, but my sincerity on this always seems to be questioned.

What is the point of repeatedly demanding my assurances on this, if you're not going to believe me when I give them?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 1st March 2018, 12:39 PM

I do believe you. Just say it. If anyone has problems with your sincerity it's trolling....

Now I DO have problems with politicians paid by the NRA (hundreds of thousands of pounds) professing "thoughts and prayers" every time there's a massacre because that is insincere politics when they have the power to do something about it. You aren't paid by the NRA so there's no reason to believe you would be insincere.

Posted by: vidcapper 1st March 2018, 03:26 PM

Why would I say something I don't believe?

[quote]Now I DO have problems with politicians paid by the NRA (hundreds of thousands of pounds) professing "thoughts and prayers" every time there's a massacre because that is insincere politics when they have the power to do something about it. You aren't paid by the NRA so there's no reason to believe you would be insincere.
[/quote}

On a side issue, wouldn't it be more practical to start a specific thread about gun control, rather than have the issue spill out over several, as it has started to do?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 1st March 2018, 08:35 PM

You are just being contradictory for the sake of it now. You moan you dont condemn violence etc because no-one takes you seriously.I say I support your sincerity and suddenly you claim that will mean you saying something you dont believe.

That leads me to conclude your reading skills are very poor or else youve just been making excuses and you really don't care after all. I can't win. I take your side and you miss the point entirely.

Gun control is the number issue in the USA, so yes, it belongs in the Trump thread.

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd March 2018, 06:52 AM

I never *intend* to be contradictory - if I appear to be, it is purely accidental.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 2nd March 2018, 10:40 AM

perhaps a self-awareness course would help?

Posted by: vidcapper 3rd March 2018, 06:33 AM

I am already self-aware.