FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > MAGA’s next moves?
MAGA’s next moves?
Jump to: Newest in thread
Ok, so we still aren’t 100% sure about the motives of the Charlie Kirk murderer in the US. Family were Republican, bullets found with contradictory anti fascist & homophobic messages on them, so it’s a coin toss whether the murderer was left or right wing or simply a very confused individual who was just not right in the head.
Regardless, Trump’s appearance on US TV this morning makes it clear he lays all of the blame for political violence predictably on ‘The Left’. So it seems to me instead of trying to calm things down, he’s still fanning flames with a view to possibly justifying next steps…?
It’s perfectly timed for those around Trump, regardless of who did it. Just like various things were ‘perfectly timed’ for the Nazis.
Is he going to use this as his excuse to become more authoritarian?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
if the assassin turns out to be just a confused weirdo rather than a left wing vigilante, as seems likely, the right will stop talking about Kirk immediately.
They don't actually care about him, only what points it might score them if the killer was a lefty. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"if the assassin turns out to be just a confused weirdo rather than a left wing vigilante, as seems likely, the right will stop talking about Kirk immediately.
They don't actually care about him, only what points it might score them if the killer was a lefty. "
I agree. Trump doesn’t give much of a toss about Kirk on a personal level. He looked pretty jolly at the Yankees game last night. Seemed more interested in the new White House Ballroom this afternoon than offering any significant words about Charlie Kirk.
They are going to try & pin it on ‘The Radical Left’ though, somehow, anyhow, surely….
The US is a fecking car crash at the moment, that’s for sure.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site) 34 weeks ago
|
Aren’t “being a very confused individual who just isn’t right in the head” and being a Leftist exactly the same thing?
Still I’m glad to see that so many US public sector workers who have rejoiced at Kirk’s murder are being fired.
There is no place for these people in civil society. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 34 weeks ago
|
"if the assassin turns out to be just a confused weirdo rather than a left wing vigilante, as seems likely, the right will stop talking about Kirk immediately.
They don't actually care about him, only what points it might score them if the killer was a lefty.
I agree. Trump doesn’t give much of a toss about Kirk on a personal level. He looked pretty jolly at the Yankees game last night. Seemed more interested in the new White House Ballroom this afternoon than offering any significant words about Charlie Kirk.
They are going to try & pin it on ‘The Radical Left’ though, somehow, anyhow, surely….
The US is a fecking car crash at the moment, that’s for sure.
"
US annualised growth second quarter 3.3%
UK annualised growth second quarter 1.2%
“Car crash”. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
They have moved progressively towards a more authoritarian state, so will utilize anything going to forge ahead, in all likelihood. They haven't finished on their journey 
The family of the victim will not particularly be considered for the effects on them. Nobody is more important than Trump.
And truth has little importance. Expect everything to be done to continue to debase anything other than what he wants and supports in the moment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"if the assassin turns out to be just a confused weirdo rather than a left wing vigilante, as seems likely, the right will stop talking about Kirk immediately.
They don't actually care about him, only what points it might score them if the killer was a lefty.
I agree. Trump doesn’t give much of a toss about Kirk on a personal level. He looked pretty jolly at the Yankees game last night. Seemed more interested in the new White House Ballroom this afternoon than offering any significant words about Charlie Kirk.
They are going to try & pin it on ‘The Radical Left’ though, somehow, anyhow, surely….
The US is a fecking car crash at the moment, that’s for sure.
US annualised growth second quarter 3.3%
UK annualised growth second quarter 1.2%
“Car crash”."
Pretty obvious I was alluding to social cohesion issues as a ‘car crash’
Anyhow, wasn’t the US jobs report less than stellar the other day? Inflation slightly up? Full effects of Trumps erratic tariff tinkering still to be felt yet?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 34 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Ok, so we still aren’t 100% sure about the motives of the Charlie Kirk murderer in the US. Family were Republican, bullets found with contradictory anti fascist & homophobic messages on them, so it’s a coin toss whether the murderer was left or right wing or simply a very confused individual who was just not right in the head.
Regardless, Trump’s appearance on US TV this morning makes it clear he lays all of the blame for political violence predictably on ‘The Left’. So it seems to me instead of trying to calm things down, he’s still fanning flames with a view to possibly justifying next steps…?
It’s perfectly timed for those around Trump, regardless of who did it. Just like various things were ‘perfectly timed’ for the Nazis.
Is he going to use this as his excuse to become more authoritarian?
"
Quick to blame the left….. but you may be about to find out who “groypers” are…
So if you thought Charlie Kirk was controversial… wait till you hear about Nick Fuentes |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hirleyMan 34 weeks ago
Wine bar |
"
US annualised growth second quarter 3.3%
UK annualised growth second quarter 1.2%
“Car crash”."
If you’re talking GDP, it doesn’t show how the average person’s doing. You can have “growth” while wages stagnate, services collapse, and inequality widens; which is the exact thing that's happening in your beloved US! Just as it has here and just about everywhere else. What matters is real wages, cost of living, housing and public services; GDP doesn’t relate to any of that.
And just to be clear, I’m no champion of the UK’s economic direction or any of its leaders. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Who gives a shit. Americans by definition are slightly less intelligent than your average chimp and Charlie boy was a massive supporter of Israel so why I don’t condone a bullet in his neck he’s really no loss. Anyone supporting Israel is not a loss. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 34 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
A lunatic kills a man who challenges thinking, and you turn into this?
"It’s perfectly timed for those around Trump, regardless of who did it. Just like various things were ‘perfectly timed’ for the Nazis.
Is he going to use this as his excuse to become more authoritarian?" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 34 weeks ago
|
Looks like the alleged killer had a fairly standard upbringing with a respectable family. His direct relatives were involved in turning him in. Got a scholarship to a local university but rapidly dropped out.
According to Utah Governor Spencer Cox: “It’s very clear to us and to the investigators that this was a person who was deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology.” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 34 weeks ago
|
"Looks like the alleged killer had a fairly standard upbringing with a respectable family. His direct relatives were involved in turning him in. Got a scholarship to a local university but rapidly dropped out.
According to Utah Governor Spencer Cox: “It’s very clear to us and to the investigators that this was a person who was deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology.”"
He grew up in a Republican household, but he himself is an 'inactive' voter. His online posts are mixed, some disparaging to Democrats. It suits the narrative (of some) to slap a 'leftist' label on him, but there's no strong evidence (yet). He might just be a sole actor with mental health issues and far too easy access to a gun. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 34 weeks ago
|
"I'm very confused why the British Media are giving this so much coverage?
"
Bit like George Floyd and “Black Lives Matter” I suppose.
Maybe we can expect Starmer and Lammy to get down on one knee soon, or whatever the equivalent is going to be here.
And for staff at every UK public sector body and large UK corporation to undergo compulsory “free speech” training and to have to sit in on “struggle sessions” to understand their “u*conscious Leftist bias”. Maybe see more Christians given prominent roles in tv and advertising. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Looks like the alleged killer had a fairly standard upbringing with a respectable family. His direct relatives were involved in turning him in. Got a scholarship to a local university but rapidly dropped out.
According to Utah Governor Spencer Cox: “It’s very clear to us and to the investigators that this was a person who was deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology.”"
------------------------------
So what? Their political ideology and motivation is just a smokescreen, the proliferation of guns and access to them is something Republicans have championed for decades, the left are the group who've campaigned for tighter gun control, which if adopted may have saved the life of Charlie Kirk and more importantly the school children who were murdered by guns last week.
Incidentally this is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the collapse of democracy and the social infrastructure of the USA.
The narrative promoting hate, pointing grubby fingers at minority groups and blaming them for everything is baseless, nihilistic and ironically will not improve the interests of the white working/middle class who are buying into this, it simply keeps them subjects of the wealthy autocracy. The pattern is being repeated here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm very confused why the British Media are giving this so much coverage?
Bit like George Floyd and “Black Lives Matter” I suppose.
Maybe we can expect Starmer and Lammy to get down on one knee soon, or whatever the equivalent is going to be here.
And for staff at every UK public sector body and large UK corporation to undergo compulsory “free speech” training and to have to sit in on “struggle sessions” to understand their “u*conscious Leftist bias”. Maybe see more Christians given prominent roles in tv and advertising."
__________________________
The far right are the ones currently complaining about offensive language and moderating what free speech means, you yourself earlier in the thread celebrated the sacking of employees who'd approved the outcome for Charlie Kirk..weren't they just exercising their right to free speech? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Looks like the alleged killer had a fairly standard upbringing with a respectable family. His direct relatives were involved in turning him in. Got a scholarship to a local university but rapidly dropped out.
According to Utah Governor Spencer Cox: “It’s very clear to us and to the investigators that this was a person who was deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology.”
------------------------------
So what? Their political ideology and motivation is just a smokescreen, the proliferation of guns and access to them is something Republicans have championed for decades, the left are the group who've campaigned for tighter gun control, which if adopted may have saved the life of Charlie Kirk and more importantly the school children who were murdered by guns last week.
Incidentally this is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the collapse of democracy and the social infrastructure of the USA.
The narrative promoting hate, pointing grubby fingers at minority groups and blaming them for everything is baseless, nihilistic and ironically will not improve the interests of the white working/middle class who are buying into this, it simply keeps them subjects of the wealthy autocracy. The pattern is being repeated here."
Totally agree, well said  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 34 weeks ago
|
"I'm very confused why the British Media are giving this so much coverage?
Bit like George Floyd and “Black Lives Matter” I suppose.
Maybe we can expect Starmer and Lammy to get down on one knee soon, or whatever the equivalent is going to be here.
And for staff at every UK public sector body and large UK corporation to undergo compulsory “free speech” training and to have to sit in on “struggle sessions” to understand their “u*conscious Leftist bias”. Maybe see more Christians given prominent roles in tv and advertising.
__________________________
The far right are the ones currently complaining about offensive language and moderating what free speech means, you yourself earlier in the thread celebrated the sacking of employees who'd approved the outcome for Charlie Kirk..weren't they just exercising their right to free speech?"
As the Left keeps telling us, free speech has consequences.
I’m pleased that Rubio has said that foreigners who praise the killing of Kirk will be banned from entering the US. Nobody in a civilised society should want people who celebrate political murder to be roaming free among them.
I would say that the UK should do the same, but that would require some actual border control. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 34 weeks ago
|
"Looks like the alleged killer had a fairly standard upbringing with a respectable family. His direct relatives were involved in turning him in. Got a scholarship to a local university but rapidly dropped out.
According to Utah Governor Spencer Cox: “It’s very clear to us and to the investigators that this was a person who was deeply indoctrinated with leftist ideology.”
------------------------------
So what? Their political ideology and motivation is just a smokescreen, the proliferation of guns and access to them is something Republicans have championed for decades, the left are the group who've campaigned for tighter gun control, which if adopted may have saved the life of Charlie Kirk and more importantly the school children who were murdered by guns last week.
Incidentally this is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the collapse of democracy and the social infrastructure of the USA.
The narrative promoting hate, pointing grubby fingers at minority groups and blaming them for everything is baseless, nihilistic and ironically will not improve the interests of the white working/middle class who are buying into this, it simply keeps them subjects of the wealthy autocracy. The pattern is being repeated here."
“Collapse of democracy”. What hysterical nonsense. Didn’t Trump get elected? Just because someone gets elected to a position and you don’t happen to agree with them doesn’t mean that “democracy is collapsing”.
I don’t agree with Starmer but I don’t feel that his election is the “collapse of democracy”.
You are spouting exactly the kind of extremist bile that is stoking division and violence.
And didn’t Trump do extremely well with Hispanics and Blacks in the last Presidential election? Wrong kind of blacks I guess. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm very confused why the British Media are giving this so much coverage?
Bit like George Floyd and “Black Lives Matter” I suppose.
Maybe we can expect Starmer and Lammy to get down on one knee soon, or whatever the equivalent is going to be here.
And for staff at every UK public sector body and large UK corporation to undergo compulsory “free speech” training and to have to sit in on “struggle sessions” to understand their “u*conscious Leftist bias”. Maybe see more Christians given prominent roles in tv and advertising.
__________________________
The far right are the ones currently complaining about offensive language and moderating what free speech means, you yourself earlier in the thread celebrated the sacking of employees who'd approved the outcome for Charlie Kirk..weren't they just exercising their right to free speech?
As the Left keeps telling us, free speech has consequences.
I’m pleased that Rubio has said that foreigners who praise the killing of Kirk will be banned from entering the US. Nobody in a civilised society should want people who celebrate political murder to be roaming free among them.
I would say that the UK should do the same, but that would require some actual border control."
___________________________________
Why is a legitimate conversation about free speech being conflated with border control?
That grubby finger still being directed at immigrants to arouse the feeble minded. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm very confused why the British Media are giving this so much coverage?
Bit like George Floyd and “Black Lives Matter” I suppose.
Maybe we can expect Starmer and Lammy to get down on one knee soon, or whatever the equivalent is going to be here.
And for staff at every UK public sector body and large UK corporation to undergo compulsory “free speech” training and to have to sit in on “struggle sessions” to understand their “u*conscious Leftist bias”. Maybe see more Christians given prominent roles in tv and advertising.
__________________________
The far right are the ones currently complaining about offensive language and moderating what free speech means, you yourself earlier in the thread celebrated the sacking of employees who'd approved the outcome for Charlie Kirk..weren't they just exercising their right to free speech?
As the Left keeps telling us, free speech has consequences.
I’m pleased that Rubio has said that foreigners who praise the killing of Kirk will be banned from entering the US. Nobody in a civilised society should want people who celebrate political murder to be roaming free among them.
I would say that the UK should do the same, but that would require some actual border control."
I very much doubt anyone who disagreed with CKs views would even want to travel to America while Trump is president. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Those at the top pulling the strings deliberately stir up racism and division and controversy because it’s the easiest way to keep everyone distracted.
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
While we’re busy fighting each other, the billionaires are laughing in their private clubs, getting richer off our stoked rage and prejudice.
As for ‘The Left’ being the sole perpetrators of violence, well that is just laughable beyond belief. There was another shooting in the USA on the same day as Charlie Kirk’s by another right winger.
But yes, everything is fine in the USA. A real model to aspire to.
Is this the kind of society we really want in the UK?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm very confused why the British Media are giving this so much coverage?
"
And me. Other than the occasion when he turned up here spewing his bile and failing in his attempt to set up a branch of his cult that grooms the vulnerable and tries to turn everywhere into a third world maga toilet, it's bizarre that anyone other than the mentally unwell are paying him any credence to be fair. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 34 weeks ago
|
Politician murders in the UK since 1945:
Airey Neave 
Anthony Berry
Robert Bradford (gun)
Ian Gow
Andrew Pennington (knife)
Jo Cox (gun and knife)
David Amess (knife)
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Politician murders in the UK since 1945:
Airey Neave
Anthony Berry
Robert Bradford (gun)
Ian Gow
Andrew Pennington (knife)
Jo Cox (gun and knife)
David Amess (knife)
"
Just for clarity, the twat in question wasn't a politician, he was just another deranged gobshite shit posting on the internet for money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Politician murders in the UK since 1945:
Airey Neave
Anthony Berry
Robert Bradford (gun)
Ian Gow
Andrew Pennington (knife)
Jo Cox (gun and knife)
David Amess (knife)
"
_______________
Your point being? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
"
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"While we’re busy fighting each other, the billionaires are laughing in their private clubs, getting richer off our stoked rage and prejudice.
"
Should the left also shut up and stop bringing up identity politics all the time, so that we can focus on the Billionaires instead? The last time we had massive discontent among racial lines across multiple countries was during the George Floyd protests. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it."
You don’t think a nation made up of immigrants not wanting more immigrants is ironic? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"While we’re busy fighting each other, the billionaires are laughing in their private clubs, getting richer off our stoked rage and prejudice.
Should the left also shut up and stop bringing up identity politics all the time, so that we can focus on the Billionaires instead? The last time we had massive discontent among racial lines across multiple countries was during the George Floyd protests."
Oh give over. The right bring up identity politics all the time as well. What’s quibbling about DEI if it isn’t an argument about identity? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Trumps next move is to talk about the construction of the ballroom, immediately after being asked how he was bearing up after the killing of CK.
Nothing like a bit of deflection when you can't blame the left for an horrific act.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"While we’re busy fighting each other, the billionaires are laughing in their private clubs, getting richer off our stoked rage and prejudice.
Should the left also shut up and stop bringing up identity politics all the time, so that we can focus on the Billionaires instead? The last time we had massive discontent among racial lines across multiple countries was during the George Floyd protests.
Oh give over. The right bring up identity politics all the time as well. What’s quibbling about DEI if it isn’t an argument about identity?"
DEI is identity politics. Fighting against DEI and asking for everyone to be treated similarly is not.
Left wingers keep pretending like they are against billionaires and yet shamelessly lap up every thing that the big corporates feed them, like DEI and social justice.
There is a conspiracy theory that corporates and media started pushing for these things ever since the OccupyWallStreet movement in order to distract the left and the left fell for it. I don't think it's a conspiracy theory at all.
The only ones who gain out of immigration and putting cultures with opposing values together are the billionaires and the corporates. If the left really wants to take on billionaires, they should stop all this "progressive" nonsense and go back to the roots of socialism. There is a reason why the only successful left wing party in Europe is the Denmark Social Democrats who went against immigration right when the whole thing started, in spite of being called racist by the other left wing parties around Europe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it.
You don’t think a nation made up of immigrants not wanting more immigrants is ironic?"
No. Every country has had massive immigration at some point of time. Every society wants to preserve their values and immigration is seen as a threat to their values. Nothing wrong about it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
DEI is about equality of opportunity, so if DEI is scrapped, that opens the door for discrimination, for people to be excluded from housing, education, the workforce - surely that can't be good for the economy?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"DEI is about equality of opportunity, so if DEI is scrapped, that opens the door for discrimination, for people to be excluded from housing, education, the workforce - surely that can't be good for the economy?
"
DEI is a discriminatory practice. Why did they push for hiring targets based on identity? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the left really wants to take on billionaires, they should stop all this "progressive" nonsense and go back to the roots of socialism."
I’m in part agreement with you, but I don’t subscribe to idiots like Kirk bemoaning the introduction of the Civil Rights Act & so on after what went on in the USA prior to it.
Just pointing out the Democrat & Labour so called ‘left wing’ parties in the US & UK aren’t left wing because the ruling class has successfully marginalised the left wing haven’t they?
The left wing haven’t had their hands on the levers of power for 45 years.
So everything you are complaining about now are Liberal POV’s, but you know that.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"DEI is about equality of opportunity, so if DEI is scrapped, that opens the door for discrimination, for people to be excluded from housing, education, the workforce - surely that can't be good for the economy?
DEI is a discriminatory practice. Why did they push for hiring targets based on identity?"
You mean a representative workforce, and positive action, rather than positive discrimination? Is that what you're getting confused about?
Positive action is about encouraging under represented groups to apply for jobs/ peomotions. They then have to pass the selection process, the same as every other candidate.
A company cannot hire someone BECAUSE they have a protected characteristic (positive discrimination) - they hire someone with a protected characteristic because they are the best candidate for that post.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it.
You don’t think a nation made up of immigrants not wanting more immigrants is ironic?
No. Every country has had massive immigration at some point of time. Every society wants to preserve their values and immigration is seen as a threat to their values. Nothing wrong about it."
Yeah, the indigenous American Indians wanted to preserve their values and their status quo as well. They certainly didn’t want all those white Europeans stripping them of their lands & sticking them on reservations…
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the left really wants to take on billionaires, they should stop all this "progressive" nonsense and go back to the roots of socialism.
I’m in part agreement with you, but I don’t subscribe to idiots like Kirk bemoaning the introduction of the Civil Rights Act & so on after what went on in the USA prior to it.
Just pointing out the Democrat & Labour so called ‘left wing’ parties in the US & UK aren’t left wing because the ruling class has successfully marginalised the left wing haven’t they?
The left wing haven’t had their hands on the levers of power for 45 years.
So everything you are complaining about now are Liberal POV’s, but you know that.
"
I am not a follower of Kirk. So I don't have any opinions on him as a person.
As for left wing parties being marginalised, they got marginalised because the ones who should be focused on economic issues took a wrong turn and started focusing more on social justice. It's a path to self destruction the left wing politicians and also their followers took. There is no use blaming the "ruling class" or the rest of the people for that.
As I mentioned above, the other left wing parties should learn from Denmark on how to be a successful left leaning social democracy. The Swedish left wing party lost the elections thanks to their destructive immigration policies. Now they admitted that it was a mistake and they would not do it again. Guess what? They are back to being top in the polls.
The Democrats also went too deep into the social justice bs to a point where no one outside the upper middle-class progressives identified with them anymore. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it.
You don’t think a nation made up of immigrants not wanting more immigrants is ironic?
No. Every country has had massive immigration at some point of time. Every society wants to preserve their values and immigration is seen as a threat to their values. Nothing wrong about it.
Yeah, the indigenous American Indians wanted to preserve their values and their status quo as well. They certainly didn’t want all those white Europeans stripping them of their lands & sticking them on reservations…
"
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"DEI is about equality of opportunity, so if DEI is scrapped, that opens the door for discrimination, for people to be excluded from housing, education, the workforce - surely that can't be good for the economy?
DEI is a discriminatory practice. Why did they push for hiring targets based on identity?
You mean a representative workforce, and positive action, rather than positive discrimination? Is that what you're getting confused about?
"
You are the one who is confused. It IS positive discrimination. I work in tech. Recruiters were given bonus for increasing hiring of "diversity candidates". They legit tried to go above and beyond to influence the hiring decisions based if it's a diversity candidate.
The US supreme court itself called out Harvard's DEI practices discriminatory and illegal. Are you saying they were wrong?
"
Positive action is about encouraging under represented groups to apply for jobs/ peomotions. They then have to pass the selection process, the same as every other candidate.
"
Lie. They legit had hiring targets:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/feb/05/google-dei-trump
https://www.businessinsider.com/salesforce-cuts-diversity-hiring-goals-amid-dei-backlash-2025-3
It's only a few leftists online who are pretending like DEI didn't have discriminatory hiring practices. Anyone who has worked close to hiring teams know that they were indeed discriminatory.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 34 weeks ago
|
"if the assassin turns out to be just a confused weirdo rather than a left wing vigilante, as seems likely, the right will stop talking about Kirk immediately.
They don't actually care about him, only what points it might score them if the killer was a lefty.
I agree. Trump doesn’t give much of a toss about Kirk on a personal level. He looked pretty jolly at the Yankees game last night. Seemed more interested in the new White House Ballroom this afternoon than offering any significant words about Charlie Kirk.
They are going to try & pin it on ‘The Radical Left’ though, somehow, anyhow, surely….
The US is a fecking car crash at the moment, that’s for sure.
"
What a stupid post, he released a lengthy video from the white house about Kirk. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the left really wants to take on billionaires, they should stop all this "progressive" nonsense and go back to the roots of socialism.
I’m in part agreement with you, but I don’t subscribe to idiots like Kirk bemoaning the introduction of the Civil Rights Act & so on after what went on in the USA prior to it.
Just pointing out the Democrat & Labour so called ‘left wing’ parties in the US & UK aren’t left wing because the ruling class has successfully marginalised the left wing haven’t they?
The left wing haven’t had their hands on the levers of power for 45 years.
So everything you are complaining about now are Liberal POV’s, but you know that.
I am not a follower of Kirk. So I don't have any opinions on him as a person.
As for left wing parties being marginalised, they got marginalised because the ones who should be focused on economic issues took a wrong turn and started focusing more on social justice. It's a path to self destruction the left wing politicians and also their followers took. There is no use blaming the "ruling class" or the rest of the people for that.
As I mentioned above, the other left wing parties should learn from Denmark on how to be a successful left leaning social democracy. The Swedish left wing party lost the elections thanks to their destructive immigration policies. Now they admitted that it was a mistake and they would not do it again. Guess what? They are back to being top in the polls.
The Democrats also went too deep into the social justice bs to a point where no one outside the upper middle-class progressives identified with them anymore."
I agree with you that identity politics is perhaps given too much prevalence on the (Liberal) Left.
In terms of electability though & (economic) left wing marginalisation you are ignoring the fact that the billionaire club own the majority of media. So it’s a case of left wing parties thinking they have to water things down to have any chance of being elected, as they have the kitchen sink thrown at them in terms of right wing bias & propaganda don’t they?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"DEI is about equality of opportunity, so if DEI is scrapped, that opens the door for discrimination, for people to be excluded from housing, education, the workforce - surely that can't be good for the economy?
DEI is a discriminatory practice. Why did they push for hiring targets based on identity?
You mean a representative workforce, and positive action, rather than positive discrimination? Is that what you're getting confused about?
You are the one who is confused. It IS positive discrimination. I work in tech. Recruiters were given bonus for increasing hiring of "diversity candidates". They legit tried to go above and beyond to influence the hiring decisions based if it's a diversity candidate.
The US supreme court itself called out Harvard's DEI practices discriminatory and illegal. Are you saying they were wrong?
Positive action is about encouraging under represented groups to apply for jobs/ peomotions. They then have to pass the selection process, the same as every other candidate.
Lie. They legit had hiring targets:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/feb/05/google-dei-trump
https://www.businessinsider.com/salesforce-cuts-diversity-hiring-goals-amid-dei-backlash-2025-3
It's only a few leftists online who are pretending like DEI didn't have discriminatory hiring practices. Anyone who has worked close to hiring teams know that they were indeed discriminatory.
"
UK policy is positive action. You have described companies using positive discrimination. So your companies have been outside the law, and should be held to task.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"if the assassin turns out to be just a confused weirdo rather than a left wing vigilante, as seems likely, the right will stop talking about Kirk immediately.
They don't actually care about him, only what points it might score them if the killer was a lefty.
I agree. Trump doesn’t give much of a toss about Kirk on a personal level. He looked pretty jolly at the Yankees game last night. Seemed more interested in the new White House Ballroom this afternoon than offering any significant words about Charlie Kirk.
They are going to try & pin it on ‘The Radical Left’ though, somehow, anyhow, surely….
The US is a fecking car crash at the moment, that’s for sure.
What a stupid post, he released a lengthy video from the white house about Kirk."
Yeah, he was upset for less than 24 hours. When asked about it within that 24 hours he said he was feeling ok & started whittling on about a White House ballroom. So sensitive.
The honest answer is despite his platitudes, he didn’t give a sh*t about Charlie Kirk. He liked what Kirk did for him though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"if the assassin turns out to be just a confused weirdo rather than a left wing vigilante, as seems likely, the right will stop talking about Kirk immediately.
They don't actually care about him, only what points it might score them if the killer was a lefty.
I agree. Trump doesn’t give much of a toss about Kirk on a personal level. He looked pretty jolly at the Yankees game last night. Seemed more interested in the new White House Ballroom this afternoon than offering any significant words about Charlie Kirk.
They are going to try & pin it on ‘The Radical Left’ though, somehow, anyhow, surely….
The US is a fecking car crash at the moment, that’s for sure.
What a stupid post, he released a lengthy video from the white house about Kirk."
Yes, and when asked how he was bearing up with the death of CK, gave a very short response and immediately changed tack to the construction of the ballroom.
Not the response you'd expect after the dialogue from the President in the aftermath of the assassination.
. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"DEI is about equality of opportunity, so if DEI is scrapped, that opens the door for discrimination, for people to be excluded from housing, education, the workforce - surely that can't be good for the economy?
DEI is a discriminatory practice. Why did they push for hiring targets based on identity?
You mean a representative workforce, and positive action, rather than positive discrimination? Is that what you're getting confused about?
You are the one who is confused. It IS positive discrimination. I work in tech. Recruiters were given bonus for increasing hiring of "diversity candidates". They legit tried to go above and beyond to influence the hiring decisions based if it's a diversity candidate.
The US supreme court itself called out Harvard's DEI practices discriminatory and illegal. Are you saying they were wrong?
Positive action is about encouraging under represented groups to apply for jobs/ peomotions. They then have to pass the selection process, the same as every other candidate.
Lie. They legit had hiring targets:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/feb/05/google-dei-trump
https://www.businessinsider.com/salesforce-cuts-diversity-hiring-goals-amid-dei-backlash-2025-3
It's only a few leftists online who are pretending like DEI didn't have discriminatory hiring practices. Anyone who has worked close to hiring teams know that they were indeed discriminatory.
UK policy is positive action. You have described companies using positive discrimination. So your companies have been outside the law, and should be held to task.
"
These things are already in news. Even BT had diversity targets for bonuses:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/02/04/bt-dumps-diversity-targets-from-bonuses/
In practice, the equality act is just pointless. I know of some small businesses run by Asians in UK. They always hire family or friends of family almost always Asians. Technically, it's discriminatory but no one takes action on them. If small businesses could get away with it, do you think that it would be so hard for the corporates? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it.
You don’t think a nation made up of immigrants not wanting more immigrants is ironic?
No. Every country has had massive immigration at some point of time. Every society wants to preserve their values and immigration is seen as a threat to their values. Nothing wrong about it.
Yeah, the indigenous American Indians wanted to preserve their values and their status quo as well. They certainly didn’t want all those white Europeans stripping them of their lands & sticking them on reservations…
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures?"
So it’s ironic isn’t it that now in a nation of immigrants it’s suddenly time to draw a line in the sand.
Certainly not consistent in any way is it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"DEI is about equality of opportunity, so if DEI is scrapped, that opens the door for discrimination, for people to be excluded from housing, education, the workforce - surely that can't be good for the economy?
DEI is a discriminatory practice. Why did they push for hiring targets based on identity?
You mean a representative workforce, and positive action, rather than positive discrimination? Is that what you're getting confused about?
You are the one who is confused. It IS positive discrimination. I work in tech. Recruiters were given bonus for increasing hiring of "diversity candidates". They legit tried to go above and beyond to influence the hiring decisions based if it's a diversity candidate.
The US supreme court itself called out Harvard's DEI practices discriminatory and illegal. Are you saying they were wrong?
Positive action is about encouraging under represented groups to apply for jobs/ peomotions. They then have to pass the selection process, the same as every other candidate.
Lie. They legit had hiring targets:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/feb/05/google-dei-trump
https://www.businessinsider.com/salesforce-cuts-diversity-hiring-goals-amid-dei-backlash-2025-3
It's only a few leftists online who are pretending like DEI didn't have discriminatory hiring practices. Anyone who has worked close to hiring teams know that they were indeed discriminatory.
UK policy is positive action. You have described companies using positive discrimination. So your companies have been outside the law, and should be held to task.
These things are already in news. Even BT had diversity targets for bonuses:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/02/04/bt-dumps-diversity-targets-from-bonuses/
In practice, the equality act is just pointless. I know of some small businesses run by Asians in UK. They always hire family or friends of family almost always Asians. Technically, it's discriminatory but no one takes action on them. If small businesses could get away with it, do you think that it would be so hard for the corporates?"
How is the equality act pointless? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I agree with you that identity politics is perhaps given too much prevalence on the (Liberal) Left.
In terms of electability though & (economic) left wing marginalisation you are ignoring the fact that the billionaire club own the majority of media. So it’s a case of left wing parties thinking they have to water things down to have any chance of being elected, as they have the kitchen sink thrown at them in terms of right wing bias & propaganda don’t they?
"
You are talking as though left wing media doesn't exist. They do exist. What are they doing? They are all busy posting progressive identity politics propaganda. People do not want to read yet another article about race, sex and sexuality.
Left wing parties have been historically supported by the working class and yet they lost a huge chunk of the working class support over the last decade. Maybe the left wing media should try writing more articles about the difficulties of the working class instead of telling them that they are privileged if they are white and male? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"DEI is about equality of opportunity, so if DEI is scrapped, that opens the door for discrimination, for people to be excluded from housing, education, the workforce - surely that can't be good for the economy?
DEI is a discriminatory practice. Why did they push for hiring targets based on identity?
You mean a representative workforce, and positive action, rather than positive discrimination? Is that what you're getting confused about?
You are the one who is confused. It IS positive discrimination. I work in tech. Recruiters were given bonus for increasing hiring of "diversity candidates". They legit tried to go above and beyond to influence the hiring decisions based if it's a diversity candidate.
The US supreme court itself called out Harvard's DEI practices discriminatory and illegal. Are you saying they were wrong?
Positive action is about encouraging under represented groups to apply for jobs/ peomotions. They then have to pass the selection process, the same as every other candidate.
Lie. They legit had hiring targets:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/feb/05/google-dei-trump
https://www.businessinsider.com/salesforce-cuts-diversity-hiring-goals-amid-dei-backlash-2025-3
It's only a few leftists online who are pretending like DEI didn't have discriminatory hiring practices. Anyone who has worked close to hiring teams know that they were indeed discriminatory.
UK policy is positive action. You have described companies using positive discrimination. So your companies have been outside the law, and should be held to task.
These things are already in news. Even BT had diversity targets for bonuses:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/02/04/bt-dumps-diversity-targets-from-bonuses/
In practice, the equality act is just pointless. I know of some small businesses run by Asians in UK. They always hire family or friends of family almost always Asians. Technically, it's discriminatory but no one takes action on them. If small businesses could get away with it, do you think that it would be so hard for the corporates?
How is the equality act pointless? "
I gave you numerous examples of discrimination. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it.
You don’t think a nation made up of immigrants not wanting more immigrants is ironic?
No. Every country has had massive immigration at some point of time. Every society wants to preserve their values and immigration is seen as a threat to their values. Nothing wrong about it.
Yeah, the indigenous American Indians wanted to preserve their values and their status quo as well. They certainly didn’t want all those white Europeans stripping them of their lands & sticking them on reservations…
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures?
So it’s ironic isn’t it that now in a nation of immigrants it’s suddenly time to draw a line in the sand.
Certainly not consistent in any way is it?"
The American Indians didn't know what would happen when they did it. The Americans of today know what would happen. Why would they make the same mistake with the knowledge? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it.
You don’t think a nation made up of immigrants not wanting more immigrants is ironic?
No. Every country has had massive immigration at some point of time. Every society wants to preserve their values and immigration is seen as a threat to their values. Nothing wrong about it.
Yeah, the indigenous American Indians wanted to preserve their values and their status quo as well. They certainly didn’t want all those white Europeans stripping them of their lands & sticking them on reservations…
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures?
So it’s ironic isn’t it that now in a nation of immigrants it’s suddenly time to draw a line in the sand.
Certainly not consistent in any way is it?
The American Indians didn't know what would happen when they did it. The Americans of today know what would happen. Why would they make the same mistake with the knowledge?"
Are you an immigrant? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it.
You don’t think a nation made up of immigrants not wanting more immigrants is ironic?
No. Every country has had massive immigration at some point of time. Every society wants to preserve their values and immigration is seen as a threat to their values. Nothing wrong about it.
Yeah, the indigenous American Indians wanted to preserve their values and their status quo as well. They certainly didn’t want all those white Europeans stripping them of their lands & sticking them on reservations…
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures?
So it’s ironic isn’t it that now in a nation of immigrants it’s suddenly time to draw a line in the sand.
Certainly not consistent in any way is it?
The American Indians didn't know what would happen when they did it. The Americans of today know what would happen. Why would they make the same mistake with the knowledge?
Are you an immigrant?"
Yes |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"DEI is about equality of opportunity, so if DEI is scrapped, that opens the door for discrimination, for people to be excluded from housing, education, the workforce - surely that can't be good for the economy?
DEI is a discriminatory practice. Why did they push for hiring targets based on identity?
You mean a representative workforce, and positive action, rather than positive discrimination? Is that what you're getting confused about?
You are the one who is confused. It IS positive discrimination. I work in tech. Recruiters were given bonus for increasing hiring of "diversity candidates". They legit tried to go above and beyond to influence the hiring decisions based if it's a diversity candidate.
The US supreme court itself called out Harvard's DEI practices discriminatory and illegal. Are you saying they were wrong?
Positive action is about encouraging under represented groups to apply for jobs/ peomotions. They then have to pass the selection process, the same as every other candidate.
Lie. They legit had hiring targets:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/feb/05/google-dei-trump
https://www.businessinsider.com/salesforce-cuts-diversity-hiring-goals-amid-dei-backlash-2025-3
It's only a few leftists online who are pretending like DEI didn't have discriminatory hiring practices. Anyone who has worked close to hiring teams know that they were indeed discriminatory.
UK policy is positive action. You have described companies using positive discrimination. So your companies have been outside the law, and should be held to task.
These things are already in news. Even BT had diversity targets for bonuses:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/02/04/bt-dumps-diversity-targets-from-bonuses/
In practice, the equality act is just pointless. I know of some small businesses run by Asians in UK. They always hire family or friends of family almost always Asians. Technically, it's discriminatory but no one takes action on them. If small businesses could get away with it, do you think that it would be so hard for the corporates?
How is the equality act pointless?
I gave you numerous examples of discrimination. "
In the workplace.
The Equalities Act 2010 is more than the workplace. It's access to education, services, housing. Take away the Equality Act 2010, businesses no longer have to provide accommodations for disabilities, or pregnancy, or age, or sex. People can be denied services based on what is currently a protected characteristic. THAT is discrimination.
So, the Equalities Act 2010 is actually very relevant.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it.
You don’t think a nation made up of immigrants not wanting more immigrants is ironic?
No. Every country has had massive immigration at some point of time. Every society wants to preserve their values and immigration is seen as a threat to their values. Nothing wrong about it.
Yeah, the indigenous American Indians wanted to preserve their values and their status quo as well. They certainly didn’t want all those white Europeans stripping them of their lands & sticking them on reservations…
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures?
So it’s ironic isn’t it that now in a nation of immigrants it’s suddenly time to draw a line in the sand.
Certainly not consistent in any way is it?
The American Indians didn't know what would happen when they did it. The Americans of today know what would happen. Why would they make the same mistake with the knowledge?
Are you an immigrant?
Yes"
Ok, and you don’t think you are being ironic in any way? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it.
You don’t think a nation made up of immigrants not wanting more immigrants is ironic?
No. Every country has had massive immigration at some point of time. Every society wants to preserve their values and immigration is seen as a threat to their values. Nothing wrong about it.
Yeah, the indigenous American Indians wanted to preserve their values and their status quo as well. They certainly didn’t want all those white Europeans stripping them of their lands & sticking them on reservations…
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures?
So it’s ironic isn’t it that now in a nation of immigrants it’s suddenly time to draw a line in the sand.
Certainly not consistent in any way is it?
The American Indians didn't know what would happen when they did it. The Americans of today know what would happen. Why would they make the same mistake with the knowledge?
Are you an immigrant?
Yes
Ok, and you don’t think you are being ironic in any way?"
No. Because numbers matter. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it.
You don’t think a nation made up of immigrants not wanting more immigrants is ironic?
No. Every country has had massive immigration at some point of time. Every society wants to preserve their values and immigration is seen as a threat to their values. Nothing wrong about it.
Yeah, the indigenous American Indians wanted to preserve their values and their status quo as well. They certainly didn’t want all those white Europeans stripping them of their lands & sticking them on reservations…
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures?
So it’s ironic isn’t it that now in a nation of immigrants it’s suddenly time to draw a line in the sand.
Certainly not consistent in any way is it?
The American Indians didn't know what would happen when they did it. The Americans of today know what would happen. Why would they make the same mistake with the knowledge?
Are you an immigrant?
Yes"
Are you a DEI hire? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it.
You don’t think a nation made up of immigrants not wanting more immigrants is ironic?
No. Every country has had massive immigration at some point of time. Every society wants to preserve their values and immigration is seen as a threat to their values. Nothing wrong about it.
Yeah, the indigenous American Indians wanted to preserve their values and their status quo as well. They certainly didn’t want all those white Europeans stripping them of their lands & sticking them on reservations…
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures?
So it’s ironic isn’t it that now in a nation of immigrants it’s suddenly time to draw a line in the sand.
Certainly not consistent in any way is it?
The American Indians didn't know what would happen when they did it. The Americans of today know what would happen. Why would they make the same mistake with the knowledge?
Are you an immigrant?
Yes
Ok, and you don’t think you are being ironic in any way?
No. Because numbers matter."
Yeah, you’re here, now let’s pull up the drawbridge.
Nice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
In the workplace.
The Equalities Act 2010 is more than the workplace. It's access to education, services, housing. Take away the Equality Act 2010, businesses no longer have to provide accommodations for disabilities, or pregnancy, or age, or sex. People can be denied services based on what is currently a protected characteristic. THAT is discrimination.
So, the Equalities Act 2010 is actually very relevant.
"
Sure, I was mostly talking about workplace when I mentioned that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it.
You don’t think a nation made up of immigrants not wanting more immigrants is ironic?
No. Every country has had massive immigration at some point of time. Every society wants to preserve their values and immigration is seen as a threat to their values. Nothing wrong about it.
Yeah, the indigenous American Indians wanted to preserve their values and their status quo as well. They certainly didn’t want all those white Europeans stripping them of their lands & sticking them on reservations…
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures?
So it’s ironic isn’t it that now in a nation of immigrants it’s suddenly time to draw a line in the sand.
Certainly not consistent in any way is it?
The American Indians didn't know what would happen when they did it. The Americans of today know what would happen. Why would they make the same mistake with the knowledge?
Are you an immigrant?
Yes
Are you a DEI hire? "
No, Asian males aren't considered DEI hire in tech. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it.
You don’t think a nation made up of immigrants not wanting more immigrants is ironic?
No. Every country has had massive immigration at some point of time. Every society wants to preserve their values and immigration is seen as a threat to their values. Nothing wrong about it.
Yeah, the indigenous American Indians wanted to preserve their values and their status quo as well. They certainly didn’t want all those white Europeans stripping them of their lands & sticking them on reservations…
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures?
So it’s ironic isn’t it that now in a nation of immigrants it’s suddenly time to draw a line in the sand.
Certainly not consistent in any way is it?
The American Indians didn't know what would happen when they did it. The Americans of today know what would happen. Why would they make the same mistake with the knowledge?
Are you an immigrant?
Yes
Ok, and you don’t think you are being ironic in any way?
No. Because numbers matter."
The cognitive dissonance is strong! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it.
You don’t think a nation made up of immigrants not wanting more immigrants is ironic?
No. Every country has had massive immigration at some point of time. Every society wants to preserve their values and immigration is seen as a threat to their values. Nothing wrong about it.
Yeah, the indigenous American Indians wanted to preserve their values and their status quo as well. They certainly didn’t want all those white Europeans stripping them of their lands & sticking them on reservations…
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures?
So it’s ironic isn’t it that now in a nation of immigrants it’s suddenly time to draw a line in the sand.
Certainly not consistent in any way is it?
The American Indians didn't know what would happen when they did it. The Americans of today know what would happen. Why would they make the same mistake with the knowledge?
Are you an immigrant?
Yes
Are you a DEI hire?
No, Asian males aren't considered DEI hire in tech."
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it.
You don’t think a nation made up of immigrants not wanting more immigrants is ironic?
No. Every country has had massive immigration at some point of time. Every society wants to preserve their values and immigration is seen as a threat to their values. Nothing wrong about it.
Yeah, the indigenous American Indians wanted to preserve their values and their status quo as well. They certainly didn’t want all those white Europeans stripping them of their lands & sticking them on reservations…
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures?
So it’s ironic isn’t it that now in a nation of immigrants it’s suddenly time to draw a line in the sand.
Certainly not consistent in any way is it?
The American Indians didn't know what would happen when they did it. The Americans of today know what would happen. Why would they make the same mistake with the knowledge?"
American Indians, Aboriginals, Countries that was Christian then Islamic now etc, If they knew then what was to become of them now, Would they not fight harder to hold on to their own beliefs and customs and still be the majority in their country |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Yeah, the indigenous American Indians wanted to preserve their values and their status quo as well. They certainly didn’t want all those white Europeans stripping them of their lands & sticking them on reservations…
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures?
So it’s ironic isn’t it that now in a nation of immigrants it’s suddenly time to draw a line in the sand.
Certainly not consistent in any way is it?
The American Indians didn't know what would happen when they did it. The Americans of today know what would happen. Why would they make the same mistake with the knowledge?
Are you an immigrant?
Yes
Ok, and you don’t think you are being ironic in any way?
No. Because numbers matter.
Yeah, you’re here, now let’s pull up the drawbridge.
Nice."
I am explaining the point of view of people who are against massive immigration. If half China's population moves to India, do you think India will have the same type of society, values and legal system a few years after that? It won't.
The majority people in every society prefer having some limits on immigration. In India, I have seen anti immigration sentiment between people in different states. People from South Indian states against immigration from north India and vice versa.
If you want to pretend like you had a massive gotcha moment because I as an immigrant is pointing it out to you, please carry on The left will continue to lose elections until they understand this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it.
You don’t think a nation made up of immigrants not wanting more immigrants is ironic?
No. Every country has had massive immigration at some point of time. Every society wants to preserve their values and immigration is seen as a threat to their values. Nothing wrong about it.
Yeah, the indigenous American Indians wanted to preserve their values and their status quo as well. They certainly didn’t want all those white Europeans stripping them of their lands & sticking them on reservations…
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures?
So it’s ironic isn’t it that now in a nation of immigrants it’s suddenly time to draw a line in the sand.
Certainly not consistent in any way is it?
The American Indians didn't know what would happen when they did it. The Americans of today know what would happen. Why would they make the same mistake with the knowledge?
Are you an immigrant?
Yes
Are you a DEI hire?
No, Asian males aren't considered DEI hire in tech.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣"
What's there to laugh? There is a reason why the Harvard case was filed by Asians because they were at the receiving end of discrimination. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it.
You don’t think a nation made up of immigrants not wanting more immigrants is ironic?
No. Every country has had massive immigration at some point of time. Every society wants to preserve their values and immigration is seen as a threat to their values. Nothing wrong about it.
Yeah, the indigenous American Indians wanted to preserve their values and their status quo as well. They certainly didn’t want all those white Europeans stripping them of their lands & sticking them on reservations…
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures?
So it’s ironic isn’t it that now in a nation of immigrants it’s suddenly time to draw a line in the sand.
Certainly not consistent in any way is it?
The American Indians didn't know what would happen when they did it. The Americans of today know what would happen. Why would they make the same mistake with the knowledge?
Are you an immigrant?
Yes
Are you a DEI hire?
No, Asian males aren't considered DEI hire in tech.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What's there to laugh? There is a reason why the Harvard case was filed by Asians because they were at the receiving end of discrimination."
Oh, so many things! You've really cheered me up today. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The American Indians didn't know what would happen when they did it. The Americans of today know what would happen. Why would they make the same mistake with the knowledge?
American Indians, Aboriginals, Countries that was Christian then Islamic now etc, If they knew then what was to become of them now, Would they not fight harder to hold on to their own beliefs and customs and still be the majority in their country "
If they knew, they would fight. In fact many did, didn't they? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it.
You don’t think a nation made up of immigrants not wanting more immigrants is ironic?
No. Every country has had massive immigration at some point of time. Every society wants to preserve their values and immigration is seen as a threat to their values. Nothing wrong about it.
Yeah, the indigenous American Indians wanted to preserve their values and their status quo as well. They certainly didn’t want all those white Europeans stripping them of their lands & sticking them on reservations…
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures?
So it’s ironic isn’t it that now in a nation of immigrants it’s suddenly time to draw a line in the sand.
Certainly not consistent in any way is it?
The American Indians didn't know what would happen when they did it. The Americans of today know what would happen. Why would they make the same mistake with the knowledge?
Are you an immigrant?
Yes
Are you a DEI hire?
No, Asian males aren't considered DEI hire in tech.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What's there to laugh? There is a reason why the Harvard case was filed by Asians because they were at the receiving end of discrimination.
Oh, so many things! You've really cheered me up today. "
Didn't know you celebrate racist discrimination. But then I realised you are a progressive. So it's not surprising |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
American Indians, Aboriginals, Countries that was Christian then Islamic now etc, If they knew then what was to become of them now, Would they not fight harder to hold on to their own beliefs and customs and still be the majority in their country "
Yeah, the American Indians need to dispatch all those non indigenous types back to their native lands then. Fair’s fair & all that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
American Indians, Aboriginals, Countries that was Christian then Islamic now etc, If they knew then what was to become of them now, Would they not fight harder to hold on to their own beliefs and customs and still be the majority in their country
Yeah, the American Indians need to dispatch all those non indigenous types back to their native lands then. Fair’s fair & all that."
It was never about any universal morals. It has always been about power and self protection. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it.
You don’t think a nation made up of immigrants not wanting more immigrants is ironic?
No. Every country has had massive immigration at some point of time. Every society wants to preserve their values and immigration is seen as a threat to their values. Nothing wrong about it.
Yeah, the indigenous American Indians wanted to preserve their values and their status quo as well. They certainly didn’t want all those white Europeans stripping them of their lands & sticking them on reservations…
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures?
So it’s ironic isn’t it that now in a nation of immigrants it’s suddenly time to draw a line in the sand.
Certainly not consistent in any way is it?
The American Indians didn't know what would happen when they did it. The Americans of today know what would happen. Why would they make the same mistake with the knowledge?
Are you an immigrant?
Yes
Are you a DEI hire?
No, Asian males aren't considered DEI hire in tech.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What's there to laugh? There is a reason why the Harvard case was filed by Asians because they were at the receiving end of discrimination.
Oh, so many things! You've really cheered me up today.
Didn't know you celebrate racist discrimination. But then I realised you are a progressive. So it's not surprising "
So, progressives/liberals/"leftists" celebrate racist discrimination?
Please elaborate on your stance on this?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
American Indians, Aboriginals, Countries that was Christian then Islamic now etc, If they knew then what was to become of them now, Would they not fight harder to hold on to their own beliefs and customs and still be the majority in their country
Yeah, the American Indians need to dispatch all those non indigenous types back to their native lands then. Fair’s fair & all that.
It was never about any universal morals. It has always been about power and self protection. "
So the powerful can trample on the less powerful?
Self protection????? Elaborate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures?
So it’s ironic isn’t it that now in a nation of immigrants it’s suddenly time to draw a line in the sand.
Certainly not consistent in any way is it?
The American Indians didn't know what would happen when they did it. The Americans of today know what would happen. Why would they make the same mistake with the knowledge?
Are you an immigrant?
Yes
Are you a DEI hire?
No, Asian males aren't considered DEI hire in tech.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What's there to laugh? There is a reason why the Harvard case was filed by Asians because they were at the receiving end of discrimination.
Oh, so many things! You've really cheered me up today.
Didn't know you celebrate racist discrimination. But then I realised you are a progressive. So it's not surprising
So, progressives/liberals/"leftists" celebrate racist discrimination?
Please elaborate on your stance on this?
"
You are fine with racist/sexist discrimination as long as it's the right race/sex being discriminated against. You just call it "positive discrimination". I just showed how DEI discriminatory. You found it funny. If the same kind of discrimination is shown to happen against other races/sex, you wouldn't find it funny. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Immigration is like the weather. Where you have a cold front move quickly in a warm area there will be a storm, before a calm.
Where there is a slow mixture there is more of a equilibrium. Too much too quickly causes problems, where there is controlled flow it makes integration easier for everyone.
I do think that learning the native language and culture should be mandatory though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
American Indians, Aboriginals, Countries that was Christian then Islamic now etc, If they knew then what was to become of them now, Would they not fight harder to hold on to their own beliefs and customs and still be the majority in their country
Yeah, the American Indians need to dispatch all those non indigenous types back to their native lands then. Fair’s fair & all that.
It was never about any universal morals. It has always been about power and self protection.
So the powerful can trample on the less powerful?
Self protection????? Elaborate. "
Geopolitics has never been about good Vs bad. It was always about societies making choices based on their power and self interest.
Sure, morally speaking, you might say that the native Indians should fight back against the Americans. But doing so would be against their self interest because they don't have the power to do so. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
American Indians, Aboriginals, Countries that was Christian then Islamic now etc, If they knew then what was to become of them now, Would they not fight harder to hold on to their own beliefs and customs and still be the majority in their country
Yeah, the American Indians need to dispatch all those non indigenous types back to their native lands then. Fair’s fair & all that."
So if a countries population now believes in 20-50 years time they will be the minority in their own country they have a right to stop that happening
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It was never about any universal morals. It has always been about power and self protection.
True, I’ll give you that one. Humans eh?
"
Yup, humans. The only moral frameworks that have managed to expand over large groups of people have been the religious ones. And even with religions telling people not to kill, humans managed to go on numerous wars in the name of religion itself  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures?
So it’s ironic isn’t it that now in a nation of immigrants it’s suddenly time to draw a line in the sand.
Certainly not consistent in any way is it?
The American Indians didn't know what would happen when they did it. The Americans of today know what would happen. Why would they make the same mistake with the knowledge?
Are you an immigrant?
Yes
Are you a DEI hire?
No, Asian males aren't considered DEI hire in tech.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What's there to laugh? There is a reason why the Harvard case was filed by Asians because they were at the receiving end of discrimination.
Oh, so many things! You've really cheered me up today.
Didn't know you celebrate racist discrimination. But then I realised you are a progressive. So it's not surprising
So, progressives/liberals/"leftists" celebrate racist discrimination?
Please elaborate on your stance on this?
You are fine with racist/sexist discrimination as long as it's the right race/sex being discriminated against. You just call it "positive discrimination". I just showed how DEI discriminatory. You found it funny. If the same kind of discrimination is shown to happen against other races/sex, you wouldn't find it funny."
No, you haven't shown me how DEI is discriminatory. You have highlighted instances where DEI has been used inappropriately, possibly illegally.
Positive action and positive discrimination are two distinct things. You need to understand that before you say someone is in favour of positive discrimination.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures?
So it’s ironic isn’t it that now in a nation of immigrants it’s suddenly time to draw a line in the sand.
Certainly not consistent in any way is it?
The American Indians didn't know what would happen when they did it. The Americans of today know what would happen. Why would they make the same mistake with the knowledge?
Are you an immigrant?
Yes
Are you a DEI hire?
No, Asian males aren't considered DEI hire in tech.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What's there to laugh? There is a reason why the Harvard case was filed by Asians because they were at the receiving end of discrimination.
Oh, so many things! You've really cheered me up today.
Didn't know you celebrate racist discrimination. But then I realised you are a progressive. So it's not surprising
So, progressives/liberals/"leftists" celebrate racist discrimination?
Please elaborate on your stance on this?
You are fine with racist/sexist discrimination as long as it's the right race/sex being discriminated against. You just call it "positive discrimination". I just showed how DEI discriminatory. You found it funny. If the same kind of discrimination is shown to happen against other races/sex, you wouldn't find it funny.
No, you haven't shown me how DEI is discriminatory. You have highlighted instances where DEI has been used inappropriately, possibly illegally.
Positive action and positive discrimination are two distinct things. You need to understand that before you say someone is in favour of positive discrimination.
"
I gave you numerous examples of positive discrimination in the name of DEI. I also mentioned the Harvard case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Didn't work great for them, did it? Isn't your example evidence that people are justified to be wary of immigration from other cultures?
So it’s ironic isn’t it that now in a nation of immigrants it’s suddenly time to draw a line in the sand.
Certainly not consistent in any way is it?
The American Indians didn't know what would happen when they did it. The Americans of today know what would happen. Why would they make the same mistake with the knowledge?
Are you an immigrant?
Yes
Are you a DEI hire?
No, Asian males aren't considered DEI hire in tech.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What's there to laugh? There is a reason why the Harvard case was filed by Asians because they were at the receiving end of discrimination.
Oh, so many things! You've really cheered me up today.
Didn't know you celebrate racist discrimination. But then I realised you are a progressive. So it's not surprising
So, progressives/liberals/"leftists" celebrate racist discrimination?
Please elaborate on your stance on this?
You are fine with racist/sexist discrimination as long as it's the right race/sex being discriminated against. You just call it "positive discrimination". I just showed how DEI discriminatory. You found it funny. If the same kind of discrimination is shown to happen against other races/sex, you wouldn't find it funny.
No, you haven't shown me how DEI is discriminatory. You have highlighted instances where DEI has been used inappropriately, possibly illegally.
Positive action and positive discrimination are two distinct things. You need to understand that before you say someone is in favour of positive discrimination.
I gave you numerous examples of positive discrimination in the name of DEI. I also mentioned the Harvard case."
Hmmm. You still don't get the distinction.
Positive action.
Positive discrimination.
Not the same.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
So, progressives/liberals/"leftists" celebrate racist discrimination?
Please elaborate on your stance on this?
You are fine with racist/sexist discrimination as long as it's the right race/sex being discriminated against. You just call it "positive discrimination". I just showed how DEI discriminatory. You found it funny. If the same kind of discrimination is shown to happen against other races/sex, you wouldn't find it funny.
No, you haven't shown me how DEI is discriminatory. You have highlighted instances where DEI has been used inappropriately, possibly illegally.
Positive action and positive discrimination are two distinct things. You need to understand that before you say someone is in favour of positive discrimination.
I gave you numerous examples of positive discrimination in the name of DEI. I also mentioned the Harvard case.
Hmmm. You still don't get the distinction.
Positive action.
Positive discrimination.
Not the same.
"
I know the difference. I am saying that DEI has been about positive discrimination in many cases. The examples I gave are evidence for it. I don't know why you keep going around in circles. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
So, progressives/liberals/"leftists" celebrate racist discrimination?
Please elaborate on your stance on this?
You are fine with racist/sexist discrimination as long as it's the right race/sex being discriminated against. You just call it "positive discrimination". I just showed how DEI discriminatory. You found it funny. If the same kind of discrimination is shown to happen against other races/sex, you wouldn't find it funny.
No, you haven't shown me how DEI is discriminatory. You have highlighted instances where DEI has been used inappropriately, possibly illegally.
Positive action and positive discrimination are two distinct things. You need to understand that before you say someone is in favour of positive discrimination.
I gave you numerous examples of positive discrimination in the name of DEI. I also mentioned the Harvard case.
Hmmm. You still don't get the distinction.
Positive action.
Positive discrimination.
Not the same.
I know the difference. I am saying that DEI has been about positive discrimination in many cases. The examples I gave are evidence for it. I don't know why you keep going around in circles."
Let me spell it out for you.
The Equalities Act 2010 is about equality of opportunity. It's not there to give one person an advantage over another.
If this is NOT how organisations have interpreted it, that's on those companies.
The Act itself is not the issue.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It seems like Robinson wasn't a Democrat and was brought up by people rather like Kirk - right-wingers who loved guns and Jesus.
One theory based on a facebook Groyper meme is that he targetted Kirk because he wasn't far right enough. But given the crazy inscriptions on the bullet casings this link might be only one of many strange things going on inside the mind of someone with serious mental health issues.
People like Trump will blame the left for the killing even if it eventually turns out that the shooter was a far-right lunatic motivated by thinking Kirk was too moderate.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
No, you haven't shown me how DEI is discriminatory. You have highlighted instances where DEI has been used inappropriately, possibly illegally.
Positive action and positive discrimination are two distinct things. You need to understand that before you say someone is in favour of positive discrimination.
I gave you numerous examples of positive discrimination in the name of DEI. I also mentioned the Harvard case.
Hmmm. You still don't get the distinction.
Positive action.
Positive discrimination.
Not the same.
I know the difference. I am saying that DEI has been about positive discrimination in many cases. The examples I gave are evidence for it. I don't know why you keep going around in circles.
Let me spell it out for you.
The Equalities Act 2010 is about equality of opportunity. It's not there to give one person an advantage over another.
If this is NOT how organisations have interpreted it, that's on those companies.
The Act itself is not the issue.
"
I don't know why you keep jumping between DEI and the equality act for your convenience.
DEI is not the equality act. I showed you that DEI policies used by companies and universities have been discriminatory in many instances. You are the one who mentioned that it would be illegal under the equality act. But given that they did nothing when companies were using positive discrimination, I said that they have been ineffective in this aspect.
I also admitted that the equality act could be useful in other areas that you mentioned. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
No, you haven't shown me how DEI is discriminatory. You have highlighted instances where DEI has been used inappropriately, possibly illegally.
Positive action and positive discrimination are two distinct things. You need to understand that before you say someone is in favour of positive discrimination.
I gave you numerous examples of positive discrimination in the name of DEI. I also mentioned the Harvard case.
Hmmm. You still don't get the distinction.
Positive action.
Positive discrimination.
Not the same.
I know the difference. I am saying that DEI has been about positive discrimination in many cases. The examples I gave are evidence for it. I don't know why you keep going around in circles.
Let me spell it out for you.
The Equalities Act 2010 is about equality of opportunity. It's not there to give one person an advantage over another.
If this is NOT how organisations have interpreted it, that's on those companies.
The Act itself is not the issue.
I don't know why you keep jumping between DEI and the equality act for your convenience.
DEI is not the equality act. I showed you that DEI policies used by companies and universities have been discriminatory in many instances. You are the one who mentioned that it would be illegal under the equality act. But given that they did nothing when companies were using positive discrimination, I said that they have been ineffective in this aspect.
I also admitted that the equality act could be useful in other areas that you mentioned."
You think DEI exists in isolation of the Equalities Act 2010 in the UK? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I know the difference. I am saying that DEI has been about positive discrimination in many cases. The examples I gave are evidence for it. I don't know why you keep going around in circles.
Let me spell it out for you.
The Equalities Act 2010 is about equality of opportunity. It's not there to give one person an advantage over another.
If this is NOT how organisations have interpreted it, that's on those companies.
The Act itself is not the issue.
I don't know why you keep jumping between DEI and the equality act for your convenience.
DEI is not the equality act. I showed you that DEI policies used by companies and universities have been discriminatory in many instances. You are the one who mentioned that it would be illegal under the equality act. But given that they did nothing when companies were using positive discrimination, I said that they have been ineffective in this aspect.
I also admitted that the equality act could be useful in other areas that you mentioned.
You think DEI exists in isolation of the Equalities Act 2010 in the UK? "
The topic here is about US. So I don't know why you keep talking about the Equality act. To answer your question, it clearly does positive discrimination even in UK and the equality act hasn't been able to stop it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Regarding Kirk & DEI:
Whatever schemes are in place, if your first thought on seeing someone black doing any job is that “I wonder if that’s a DEI hire”, as per his comments about black pilots, you are racist because your only input data at that point is skin colour.
If the person in question was sh*t at their job & you knew they were sh*t at their job then it’s a somewhat more understandable question to ask.
The whole “he’s just asking a question” line is the modern version of “I’m not racist but”
Racism is prejudice based on race.
Kirk was clearly pre judging a person’s job credentials based on their skin colour alone.
He was racist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Regarding Kirk & DEI:
Whatever schemes are in place, if your first thought on seeing someone black doing any job is that “I wonder if that’s a DEI hire”, as per his comments about black pilots, you are racist because your only input data at that point is skin colour.
If the person in question was sh*t at their job & you knew they were sh*t at their job then it’s a somewhat more understandable question to ask.
The whole “he’s just asking a question” line is the modern version of “I’m not racist but”
Racism is prejudice based on race.
Kirk was clearly pre judging a person’s job credentials based on their skin colour alone.
He was racist."
Does the same argument apply to people who say that a white person got a top job because of white privilege? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Regarding Kirk & DEI:
Whatever schemes are in place, if your first thought on seeing someone black doing any job is that “I wonder if that’s a DEI hire”, as per his comments about black pilots, you are racist because your only input data at that point is skin colour.
If the person in question was sh*t at their job & you knew they were sh*t at their job then it’s a somewhat more understandable question to ask.
The whole “he’s just asking a question” line is the modern version of “I’m not racist but”
Racism is prejudice based on race.
Kirk was clearly pre judging a person’s job credentials based on their skin colour alone.
He was racist.
Does the same argument apply to people who say that a white person got a top job because of white privilege?"
Why wouldn’t it? Racism is racism is racism.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I know the difference. I am saying that DEI has been about positive discrimination in many cases. The examples I gave are evidence for it. I don't know why you keep going around in circles.
Let me spell it out for you.
The Equalities Act 2010 is about equality of opportunity. It's not there to give one person an advantage over another.
If this is NOT how organisations have interpreted it, that's on those companies.
The Act itself is not the issue.
I don't know why you keep jumping between DEI and the equality act for your convenience.
DEI is not the equality act. I showed you that DEI policies used by companies and universities have been discriminatory in many instances. You are the one who mentioned that it would be illegal under the equality act. But given that they did nothing when companies were using positive discrimination, I said that they have been ineffective in this aspect.
I also admitted that the equality act could be useful in other areas that you mentioned.
You think DEI exists in isolation of the Equalities Act 2010 in the UK?
The topic here is about US. So I don't know why you keep talking about the Equality act. To answer your question, it clearly does positive discrimination even in UK and the equality act hasn't been able to stop it. "
Ahhh, the old "let's get back to the original post" deflection.
One cannot get away from the fact that the act was to reduce prejucial practices, to allow all people to have access to the same opportunities.
If people or companies have gone outside of that, that's on them.
The US does not have one piece of legislation covering equality of opportunity, it's piecemeal, by state - there is no federal legislation. There was a proposal to have a federal law introduced, but...........
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Regarding Kirk & DEI:
Whatever schemes are in place, if your first thought on seeing someone black doing any job is that “I wonder if that’s a DEI hire”, as per his comments about black pilots, you are racist because your only input data at that point is skin colour.
If the person in question was sh*t at their job & you knew they were sh*t at their job then it’s a somewhat more understandable question to ask.
The whole “he’s just asking a question” line is the modern version of “I’m not racist but”
Racism is prejudice based on race.
Kirk was clearly pre judging a person’s job credentials based on their skin colour alone.
He was racist.
Does the same argument apply to people who say that a white person got a top job because of white privilege?
Why wouldn’t it? Racism is racism is racism.
"
That's fair. But I have seen many people claim that it's ok to do it the other way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I know the difference. I am saying that DEI has been about positive discrimination in many cases. The examples I gave are evidence for it. I don't know why you keep going around in circles.
Let me spell it out for you.
The Equalities Act 2010 is about equality of opportunity. It's not there to give one person an advantage over another.
If this is NOT how organisations have interpreted it, that's on those companies.
The Act itself is not the issue.
I don't know why you keep jumping between DEI and the equality act for your convenience.
DEI is not the equality act. I showed you that DEI policies used by companies and universities have been discriminatory in many instances. You are the one who mentioned that it would be illegal under the equality act. But given that they did nothing when companies were using positive discrimination, I said that they have been ineffective in this aspect.
I also admitted that the equality act could be useful in other areas that you mentioned.
You think DEI exists in isolation of the Equalities Act 2010 in the UK?
The topic here is about US. So I don't know why you keep talking about the Equality act. To answer your question, it clearly does positive discrimination even in UK and the equality act hasn't been able to stop it.
Ahhh, the old "let's get back to the original post" deflection.
"
Trying to stop someone from veering away from the topic is deflection? First time I am hearing this 😁
"
One cannot get away from the fact that the act was to reduce prejucial practices, to allow all people to have access to the same opportunities.
"
But DEI has promoted discriminatory practices and the equality act didn't do anything about it.
"
If people or companies have gone outside of that, that's on them.
"
You keep making contradictory statements like this. You just said that the equality act is supposed to stop discriminatory practices. And now you are saying that the companies can do discrimination if they want. So which one is it?
"
The US does not have one piece of legislation covering equality of opportunity, it's piecemeal, by state - there is no federal legislation. There was a proposal to have a federal law introduced, but...........
"
Doesn't disprove the fact that DEI is discriminatory |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Regarding Kirk & DEI:
Whatever schemes are in place, if your first thought on seeing someone black doing any job is that “I wonder if that’s a DEI hire”, as per his comments about black pilots, you are racist because your only input data at that point is skin colour.
If the person in question was sh*t at their job & you knew they were sh*t at their job then it’s a somewhat more understandable question to ask.
The whole “he’s just asking a question” line is the modern version of “I’m not racist but”
Racism is prejudice based on race.
Kirk was clearly pre judging a person’s job credentials based on their skin colour alone.
He was racist."
Kirk was basically just a dumb reactionary who wanted everything to go back to how things were in the 1950's.
Essentially this is what the Make America Great Again movement is all about - returning to some mythical past before things like feminism and civil rights.
He pushed racist conspiracy theories and was a Christian Nationalist, anti-feminist and anti LGBTQ+ conservative with ideas that were old-fashioned decades before he was even born. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If people are blaming immigrants /trans/ or anyone “different” for their problems, they never stop to ask why billionaires keep getting tax breaks while hospitals crumble and rents soar. Especially ironic in the USA as it is pretty much wholly a nation of immigrants anyway.
Every country is a nation of immigrants if you look far enough into the history. Nothing ironic about it."
------------------------------------------------------
It's ironic because white nationalists are unable to acknowledge that fact |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I know the difference. I am saying that DEI has been about positive discrimination in many cases. The examples I gave are evidence for it. I don't know why you keep going around in circles.
Let me spell it out for you.
The Equalities Act 2010 is about equality of opportunity. It's not there to give one person an advantage over another.
If this is NOT how organisations have interpreted it, that's on those companies.
The Act itself is not the issue.
I don't know why you keep jumping between DEI and the equality act for your convenience.
DEI is not the equality act. I showed you that DEI policies used by companies and universities have been discriminatory in many instances. You are the one who mentioned that it would be illegal under the equality act. But given that they did nothing when companies were using positive discrimination, I said that they have been ineffective in this aspect.
I also admitted that the equality act could be useful in other areas that you mentioned.
You think DEI exists in isolation of the Equalities Act 2010 in the UK?
The topic here is about US. So I don't know why you keep talking about the Equality act. To answer your question, it clearly does positive discrimination even in UK and the equality act hasn't been able to stop it.
Ahhh, the old "let's get back to the original post" deflection.
Trying to stop someone from veering away from the topic is deflection? First time I am hearing this 😁
One cannot get away from the fact that the act was to reduce prejucial practices, to allow all people to have access to the same opportunities.
But DEI has promoted discriminatory practices and the equality act didn't do anything about it.
If people or companies have gone outside of that, that's on them.
You keep making contradictory statements like this. You just said that the equality act is supposed to stop discriminatory practices. And now you are saying that the companies can do discrimination if they want. So which one is it?
The US does not have one piece of legislation covering equality of opportunity, it's piecemeal, by state - there is no federal legislation. There was a proposal to have a federal law introduced, but...........
Doesn't disprove the fact that DEI is discriminatory "
----------------------------------------------
So is the system of patriarchy and white privilege. Dismantling DEI policies merely levels the opportunity playing field, it promotes meritocracy (finding the best person for the job), rather than the person with the best connections and favourable background.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I know the difference. I am saying that DEI has been about positive discrimination in many cases. The examples I gave are evidence for it. I don't know why you keep going around in circles.
Let me spell it out for you.
The Equalities Act 2010 is about equality of opportunity. It's not there to give one person an advantage over another.
If this is NOT how organisations have interpreted it, that's on those companies.
The Act itself is not the issue.
I don't know why you keep jumping between DEI and the equality act for your convenience.
DEI is not the equality act. I showed you that DEI policies used by companies and universities have been discriminatory in many instances. You are the one who mentioned that it would be illegal under the equality act. But given that they did nothing when companies were using positive discrimination, I said that they have been ineffective in this aspect.
I also admitted that the equality act could be useful in other areas that you mentioned.
You think DEI exists in isolation of the Equalities Act 2010 in the UK?
The topic here is about US. So I don't know why you keep talking about the Equality act. To answer your question, it clearly does positive discrimination even in UK and the equality act hasn't been able to stop it.
Ahhh, the old "let's get back to the original post" deflection.
One cannot get away from the fact that the act was to reduce prejucial practices, to allow all people to have access to the same opportunities.
If people or companies have gone outside of that, that's on them.
The US does not have one piece of legislation covering equality of opportunity, it's piecemeal, by state - there is no federal legislation. There was a proposal to have a federal law introduced, but...........
"
______________
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Doesn't disprove the fact that DEI is discriminatory
----------------------------------------------
So is the system of patriarchy and white privilege.
"
No one denied it
"
Dismantling DEI policies merely levels the opportunity playing field, it promotes meritocracy (finding the best person for the job), rather than the person with the best connections and favourable background.
"
That's exactly what I have been saying too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Doesn't disprove the fact that DEI is discriminatory
----------------------------------------------
So is the system of patriarchy and white privilege.
No one denied it
Dismantling DEI policies merely levels the opportunity playing field, it promotes meritocracy (finding the best person for the job), rather than the person with the best connections and favourable background.
That's exactly what I have been saying too."
________________________________
Apologies if I misunderstood the tone of your posts, Im responding to the most recent ones so may have missed their context |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Doesn't disprove the fact that DEI is discriminatory
----------------------------------------------
So is the system of patriarchy and white privilege.
No one denied it
Dismantling DEI policies merely levels the opportunity playing field, it promotes meritocracy (finding the best person for the job), rather than the person with the best connections and favourable background.
That's exactly what I have been saying too.
________________________________
Apologies if I misunderstood the tone of your posts, Im responding to the most recent ones so may have missed their context "
No worries |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Oh yeah, let's attack the notion of identity politics as being leftist whilst painting roundabouts with crusader crosses, hanging st George flags on every lampost and telling every non-white person that they're eroding national identity. This is the very real hypocritical idiocy of the English nationist mind virus. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *azarMan 34 weeks ago
Omagh |
"Oh yeah, let's attack the notion of identity politics as being leftist whilst painting roundabouts with crusader crosses, hanging st George flags on every lampost and telling every non-white person that they're eroding national identity. This is the very real hypocritical idiocy of the English nationist mind virus."
💯 the sickening hypocrisy from those idiots is embarrassing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As always, the left wingers are getting rabid about something without getting the full context of the conversation.
- A poster pointed out how the billionaires are sowing division between people based on identity and the right wingers are falling for it
- I said that identity politics isn't just a right wing thing. The left is pretty much doing the same.
Left wing identity politics driven focused on minority race, religion, sex and sexuality has been damaging to them whereas the right wing identity politics around nationalism and culture hasn't been damaging to them. People who were driven away by left wing identity politics found a home in right wing identity politics.
You have a living example of Denmark where a left wing party managed to keep hold of its power by not taking the identity politics route whereas every country where the left wingers resorted to identity politics has resulted in "far-right" parties gaining massive support. So the left have themselves to blame for the rise of Farage/AfD/National rally.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 34 weeks ago
|
Excellent speech from Erika Kirk yesterday. Such strength.
I expect she will now play a critical role in the USA’s political future picking up the baton from her husband. And Turning Point will go from strength to strength.
And such intellectual and moral clarity from Vance. Nothing comparable in Europe. Without doubt the next US President.
I am sure that there are many such fundraisers but I did notice that Tucker Carlson is pushing a fund raiser for the unfortunate widow and her children to secure their future, which has already raised $4 million. Via his social media. I’m sure that the “be kind” Leftists would like to support an unfortunate widow and her young children.
Credit where it’s due and excellent speech from Bernie Sanders as well standing firm in favour of free speech and against political violence.
In stark contrast to the small minded myopic bigotry from many Leftists on this forum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The exaggerations and willingness to openly conflate patriotism with racism is playing a significant part in the deepening unrest in the country and others."
It depends on what you think is patriotic.
Amongst many other things Kirk promoted the racist Great Replacement conspiracy theory.
He also said "The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white."
Critically he said "We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s."
Do you think the 1964 Act was a huge mistake?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 34 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"The exaggerations and willingness to openly conflate patriotism with racism is playing a significant part in the deepening unrest in the country and others.
It depends on what you think is patriotic.
Amongst many other things Kirk promoted the racist Great Replacement conspiracy theory.
He also said "The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white."
Critically he said "We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s."
Do you think the 1964 Act was a huge mistake?
"
What has this got to do with what I said?
A patriotic person a patriot is simply that. However it is now followed by racist, fascist etc. They are very different things from patriotic.
Patriotism, nationalism, racism and fascism are not interchangeable.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The exaggerations and willingness to openly conflate patriotism with racism is playing a significant part in the deepening unrest in the country and others.
It depends on what you think is patriotic.
Amongst many other things Kirk promoted the racist Great Replacement conspiracy theory.
He also said "The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white."
Critically he said "We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s."
Do you think the 1964 Act was a huge mistake?
What has this got to do with what I said?
A patriotic person a patriot is simply that. However it is now followed by racist, fascist etc. They are very different things from patriotic.
Patriotism, nationalism, racism and fascism are not interchangeable.
"
Tell that to the morons and their keyboard warrior apologists waving their English flags and demanding non whites go home in London today |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 34 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"The exaggerations and willingness to openly conflate patriotism with racism is playing a significant part in the deepening unrest in the country and others.
It depends on what you think is patriotic.
Amongst many other things Kirk promoted the racist Great Replacement conspiracy theory.
He also said "The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white."
Critically he said "We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s."
Do you think the 1964 Act was a huge mistake?
What has this got to do with what I said?
A patriotic person a patriot is simply that. However it is now followed by racist, fascist etc. They are very different things from patriotic.
Patriotism, nationalism, racism and fascism are not interchangeable.
Tell that to the morons and their keyboard warrior apologists waving their English flags and demanding non whites go home in London today"
You don’t see that your own thinking mirrors theirs? You have reduced everyone with a flag to “morons” and “racists", isn't that what you are accusing them of doing reducing everything into something to hate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The exaggerations and willingness to openly conflate patriotism with racism is playing a significant part in the deepening unrest in the country and others.
It depends on what you think is patriotic.
Amongst many other things Kirk promoted the racist Great Replacement conspiracy theory.
He also said "The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white."
Critically he said "We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s."
Do you think the 1964 Act was a huge mistake?
What has this got to do with what I said?
A patriotic person a patriot is simply that. However it is now followed by racist, fascist etc. They are very different things from patriotic.
Patriotism, nationalism, racism and fascism are not interchangeable.
"
Growing up I used to hear people say "he's far right" and instantly think he's a racist a bigot etc
But I now know in most cases they just have a different opinion and most of the "far left" just use it as a slur so the word "far right" even "far left" means fuck all to me, Couldn't care whatever people want to call me or others |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What has this got to do with what I said?
A patriotic person a patriot is simply that. However it is now followed by racist, fascist etc. They are very different things from patriotic.
Patriotism, nationalism, racism and fascism are not interchangeable."
This is a thread about MAGA's response to Kirk's murder. You appeared to be arguing that Kirk was merely a patriot. I questioned whether this was true given the things he promoted.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The exaggerations and willingness to openly conflate patriotism with racism is playing a significant part in the deepening unrest in the country and others.
It depends on what you think is patriotic.
Amongst many other things Kirk promoted the racist Great Replacement conspiracy theory.
He also said "The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white."
Critically he said "We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s."
Do you think the 1964 Act was a huge mistake?
What has this got to do with what I said?
A patriotic person a patriot is simply that. However it is now followed by racist, fascist etc. They are very different things from patriotic.
Patriotism, nationalism, racism and fascism are not interchangeable.
Tell that to the morons and their keyboard warrior apologists waving their English flags and demanding non whites go home in London today"
Yes that's what they're all there for 
Just because you type it doesn't make it true |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 34 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"What has this got to do with what I said?
A patriotic person a patriot is simply that. However it is now followed by racist, fascist etc. They are very different things from patriotic.
Patriotism, nationalism, racism and fascism are not interchangeable.
This is a thread about MAGA's response to Kirk's murder. You appeared to be arguing that Kirk was merely a patriot. I questioned whether this was true given the things he promoted.
"
I'm responding to posts in this thread and others that are consistently conflating patriotism with racists and fascists. I believe this has created unrest and in some people a sense of moral justification to hate and in extremes kill. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Growing up I used to hear people say "he's far right" and instantly think he's a racist a bigot etc
But I now know in most cases they just have a different opinion and most of the "far left" just use it as a slur so the word "far right" even "far left" means fuck all to me, Couldn't care whatever people want to call me or others"
Here's the kind of thing that someone who is far right might say...
"Jews are running society, women need to shut the fuck up, Blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part, and we would live in paradise; it's that simple"
This guy was hosted by Trump at Mar-a-Lago in 2022. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The exaggerations and willingness to openly conflate patriotism with racism is playing a significant part in the deepening unrest in the country and others.
It depends on what you think is patriotic.
Amongst many other things Kirk promoted the racist Great Replacement conspiracy theory.
He also said "The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white."
Critically he said "We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s."
Do you think the 1964 Act was a huge mistake?
What has this got to do with what I said?
A patriotic person a patriot is simply that. However it is now followed by racist, fascist etc. They are very different things from patriotic.
Patriotism, nationalism, racism and fascism are not interchangeable.
Tell that to the morons and their keyboard warrior apologists waving their English flags and demanding non whites go home in London today
You don’t see that your own thinking mirrors theirs? You have reduced everyone with a flag to “morons” and “racists", isn't that what you are accusing them of doing reducing everything into something to hate. "
Garbage. You thinking I hate them just because they're morons speaks volumes about you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 34 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"The exaggerations and willingness to openly conflate patriotism with racism is playing a significant part in the deepening unrest in the country and others.
It depends on what you think is patriotic.
Amongst many other things Kirk promoted the racist Great Replacement conspiracy theory.
He also said "The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white."
Critically he said "We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s."
Do you think the 1964 Act was a huge mistake?
What has this got to do with what I said?
A patriotic person a patriot is simply that. However it is now followed by racist, fascist etc. They are very different things from patriotic.
Patriotism, nationalism, racism and fascism are not interchangeable.
Tell that to the morons and their keyboard warrior apologists waving their English flags and demanding non whites go home in London today
You don’t see that your own thinking mirrors theirs? You have reduced everyone with a flag to “morons” and “racists", isn't that what you are accusing them of doing reducing everything into something to hate.
Garbage. You thinking I hate them just because they're morons speaks volumes about you"
You not being able to reflect on your own words and how they portray your thinking in the same prejudiced way that you accuse others of, perfectly illustrates my point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The exaggerations and willingness to openly conflate patriotism with racism is playing a significant part in the deepening unrest in the country and others.
It depends on what you think is patriotic.
Amongst many other things Kirk promoted the racist Great Replacement conspiracy theory.
He also said "The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white."
Critically he said "We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s."
Do you think the 1964 Act was a huge mistake?
What has this got to do with what I said?
A patriotic person a patriot is simply that. However it is now followed by racist, fascist etc. They are very different things from patriotic.
Patriotism, nationalism, racism and fascism are not interchangeable.
Tell that to the morons and their keyboard warrior apologists waving their English flags and demanding non whites go home in London today
You don’t see that your own thinking mirrors theirs? You have reduced everyone with a flag to “morons” and “racists", isn't that what you are accusing them of doing reducing everything into something to hate.
Garbage. You thinking I hate them just because they're morons speaks volumes about you
You not being able to reflect on your own words and how they portray your thinking in the same prejudiced way that you accuse others of, perfectly illustrates my point. "
Again, garbage. My post highlights your sickening hypocrisy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Just to be clear I personally am saddened by Kirk's murder. He was a dishonest and corrosive force in US politics but he didn't deserve to die for it.
But let's not pretend he was some kind of saint.
We should also not ignore the fact that the US is becoming increasingly unstable as the right tries to normalize things like storming the Capital in an attempted coup and sending troops into Democrat run cities.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 34 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"The exaggerations and willingness to openly conflate patriotism with racism is playing a significant part in the deepening unrest in the country and others.
It depends on what you think is patriotic.
Amongst many other things Kirk promoted the racist Great Replacement conspiracy theory.
He also said "The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white."
Critically he said "We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s."
Do you think the 1964 Act was a huge mistake?
What has this got to do with what I said?
A patriotic person a patriot is simply that. However it is now followed by racist, fascist etc. They are very different things from patriotic.
Patriotism, nationalism, racism and fascism are not interchangeable.
Tell that to the morons and their keyboard warrior apologists waving their English flags and demanding non whites go home in London today
You don’t see that your own thinking mirrors theirs? You have reduced everyone with a flag to “morons” and “racists", isn't that what you are accusing them of doing reducing everything into something to hate.
Garbage. You thinking I hate them just because they're morons speaks volumes about you
You not being able to reflect on your own words and how they portray your thinking in the same prejudiced way that you accuse others of, perfectly illustrates my point.
Again, garbage. My post highlights your sickening hypocrisy."
It really does, just not in the way you think it does. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 34 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Just to be clear I personally am saddened by Kirk's murder. He was a dishonest and corrosive force in US politics but he didn't deserve to die for it.
But let's not pretend he was some kind of saint.
We should also not ignore the fact that the US is becoming increasingly unstable as the right tries to normalize things like storming the Capital in an attempted coup and sending troops into Democrat run cities.
"
Kirk was a challenging individual who pushed peoples thinking. Those that have a level of emotional maturity can rise above some of his hard hitting challenges and argue against them and prove their point. Others less able struggle terribly when they realise they are simply parroting a belief and do not have the knowledge to argue sufficiently enough to alter the debate in their favour.
As for unstable, many young impressionable people who clearly emotional are turning to violence to make their point, they are morphing into the same group, face masks and paramilitary style cosplay costumes.
Both sides of the coin are doing exactly the same things, however both feel they are morally right, when neither are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 34 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"The exaggerations and willingness to openly conflate patriotism with racism is playing a significant part in the deepening unrest in the country and others.
It depends on what you think is patriotic.
Amongst many other things Kirk promoted the racist Great Replacement conspiracy theory.
He also said "The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white."
Critically he said "We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s."
Do you think the 1964 Act was a huge mistake?
What has this got to do with what I said?
A patriotic person a patriot is simply that. However it is now followed by racist, fascist etc. They are very different things from patriotic.
Patriotism, nationalism, racism and fascism are not interchangeable.
Tell that to the morons and their keyboard warrior apologists waving their English flags and demanding non whites go home in London today
You don’t see that your own thinking mirrors theirs? You have reduced everyone with a flag to “morons” and “racists", isn't that what you are accusing them of doing reducing everything into something to hate.
Garbage. You thinking I hate them just because they're morons speaks volumes about you
You not being able to reflect on your own words and how they portray your thinking in the same prejudiced way that you accuse others of, perfectly illustrates my point.
Again, garbage. My post highlights your sickening hypocrisy.
It really does, just not in the way you think it does.
Again, garbage. Your the person who mentioned racists and fascists and then tried to pass it off as something I said. You've talking bollocks as per."
I'm sorry you have lost your way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Growing up I used to hear people say "he's far right" and instantly think he's a racist a bigot etc
But I now know in most cases they just have a different opinion and most of the "far left" just use it as a slur so the word "far right" even "far left" means fuck all to me, Couldn't care whatever people want to call me or others
Here's the kind of thing that someone who is far right might say...
"Jews are running society, women need to shut the fuck up, Blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part, and we would live in paradise; it's that simple"
This guy was hosted by Trump at Mar-a-Lago in 2022. "
I wasn't talking about anyone in particular just the words far right far left, They have lost all meaning, if they actually had a meaning,
Wave a UK flag = Far Right
Wave another countries flag = Far Left
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Kirk was a challenging individual who pushed peoples thinking. Those that have a level of emotional maturity can rise above some of his hard hitting challenges and argue against them and prove their point. Others less able struggle terribly when they realise they are simply parroting a belief and do not have the knowledge to argue sufficiently enough to alter the debate in their favour.
As for unstable, many young impressionable people who clearly emotional are turning to violence to make their point, they are morphing into the same group, face masks and paramilitary style cosplay costumes.
Both sides of the coin are doing exactly the same things, however both feel they are morally right, when neither are."
It seems that you think Kirk was some kind of intellectual expounding novel ideas rather than a 1950's throwback.
I'm happy to go through his positions one by one with you if you have the "emotional maturity".
Your take on things is far more biased than you seem to realise. A bit like Trump when he said there were very fine people on both sides at Charlottesville when one of the sides were neo-Nazis.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"if the assassin turns out to be just a confused weirdo rather than a left wing vigilante, as seems likely, the right will stop talking about Kirk immediately.
They don't actually care about him, only what points it might score them if the killer was a lefty.
I agree. Trump doesn’t give much of a toss about Kirk on a personal level. He looked pretty jolly at the Yankees game last night. Seemed more interested in the new White House Ballroom this afternoon than offering any significant words about Charlie Kirk.
They are going to try & pin it on ‘The Radical Left’ though, somehow, anyhow, surely….
The US is a fecking car crash at the moment, that’s for sure.
US annualised growth second quarter 3.3%
UK annualised growth second quarter 1.2%
“Car crash”."
US annualised growth first quarter -0.5%
It's always nice to look deeper |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 34 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Kirk was a challenging individual who pushed peoples thinking. Those that have a level of emotional maturity can rise above some of his hard hitting challenges and argue against them and prove their point. Others less able struggle terribly when they realise they are simply parroting a belief and do not have the knowledge to argue sufficiently enough to alter the debate in their favour.
As for unstable, many young impressionable people who clearly emotional are turning to violence to make their point, they are morphing into the same group, face masks and paramilitary style cosplay costumes.
Both sides of the coin are doing exactly the same things, however both feel they are morally right, when neither are.
It seems that you think Kirk was some kind of intellectual expounding novel ideas rather than a 1950's throwback.
I'm happy to go through his positions one by one with you if you have the "emotional maturity".
Your take on things is far more biased than you seem to realise. A bit like Trump when he said there were very fine people on both sides at Charlottesville when one of the sides were neo-Nazis.
"
You have jumped to a conclusion that I think Kirk is X, because I'm not attacking him and gave him some credit for challenging arguments. You haven't taken into account the point that I said people with a level of emotional maturity could hold their own and prove their point with him.
I'm not going to get into a line by line for and against Kirk. However, I will tell you clearly I liked Kirk for having the confidence to make his views known globally and to challenge the thinking of many radicalised students. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he said, but in principle he as a christian and a conservative, I'm sure we had a lot in common. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You have jumped to a conclusion that I think Kirk is X, because I'm not attacking him and gave him some credit for challenging arguments. You haven't taken into account the point that I said people with a level of emotional maturity could hold their own and prove their point with him.
I'm not going to get into a line by line for and against Kirk. However, I will tell you clearly I liked Kirk for having the confidence to make his views known globally and to challenge the thinking of many radicalised students. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he said, but in principle he as a christian and a conservative, I'm sure we had a lot in common."
If you don't want to defend any of Kirk's positions then fine. We'll just have to guess what you two had in common as Christian conservatives. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 34 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"You have jumped to a conclusion that I think Kirk is X, because I'm not attacking him and gave him some credit for challenging arguments. You haven't taken into account the point that I said people with a level of emotional maturity could hold their own and prove their point with him.
I'm not going to get into a line by line for and against Kirk. However, I will tell you clearly I liked Kirk for having the confidence to make his views known globally and to challenge the thinking of many radicalised students. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he said, but in principle he as a christian and a conservative, I'm sure we had a lot in common.
If you don't want to defend any of Kirk's positions then fine. We'll just have to guess what you two had in common as Christian conservatives."
You do that, it will probably upset you though, a christian and a conservative. Don't have nightmares. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You do that, it will probably upset you though, a christian and a conservative. Don't have nightmares."
I know far more about the Bible than most Christians and far more about right-wing politics than most conservatives so don't worry yourself, I won't be having any nightmares as I already have a realistic rather than fear driven view of what these ideas mean both theoretically and in practice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan 34 weeks ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"
I gave you numerous examples of positive discrimination in the name of DEI. I also mentioned the Harvard case."
You keep mentioning the Harvard case.. without the irony in that about 1/3 of the current Harvard student base is Asian, whereas only 10% of the base is black
It actually doesn’t make any difference at Harvard because they are the richest university in America, if you are smart enough to go there, they give you some sort of scholarship to make it affordable…
Harvard don’t used DEI as such, they were just used as the general example
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I gave you numerous examples of positive discrimination in the name of DEI. I also mentioned the Harvard case.
You keep mentioning the Harvard case.. without the irony in that about 1/3 of the current Harvard student base is Asian, whereas only 10% of the base is black
"
For people who are against DEI, these numbers don't matter and we shouldn't be setting targets on these numbers.
"
It actually doesn’t make any difference at Harvard because they are the richest university in America, if you are smart enough to go there, they give you some sort of scholarship to make it affordable…
Harvard don’t used DEI as such, they were just used as the general example
"
They were using affirmative action which discriminated against the Asian Americans, which is why SFFA filed that case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Left wing identity politics driven focused on minority race, religion, sex and sexuality has been damaging to them whereas the right wing identity politics around nationalism and culture hasn't been damaging to them. People who were driven away by left wing identity politics found a home in right wing identity politics.
"
Maybe. But if you look at current polling, the overall Conservative/Progressive split remains similar. So I’m not convinced. The vote has merely become more fragmented.
Right (Con/Ref) 44%
Progressive: (Lab/Lib/Green) 49%
(YouGov 7-8 Sept)
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Left wing identity politics driven focused on minority race, religion, sex and sexuality has been damaging to them whereas the right wing identity politics around nationalism and culture hasn't been damaging to them. People who were driven away by left wing identity politics found a home in right wing identity politics.
Maybe. But if you look at current polling, the overall Conservative/Progressive split remains similar. So I’m not convinced. The vote has merely become more fragmented.
Right (Con/Ref) 44%
Progressive: (Lab/Lib/Green) 49%
(YouGov 7-8 Sept)
"
That's because Starmer has done some work to move away from identity politics. His verbal rhetoric against immigrants has been similar to the Tories. Whether he actually succeeds is quite a different thing. If you put Corbyn in charge of Labour today, those votes will go back to the Tories. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Left wing identity politics driven focused on minority race, religion, sex and sexuality has been damaging to them whereas the right wing identity politics around nationalism and culture hasn't been damaging to them. People who were driven away by left wing identity politics found a home in right wing identity politics.
Maybe. But if you look at current polling, the overall Conservative/Progressive split remains similar. So I’m not convinced. The vote has merely become more fragmented.
Right (Con/Ref) 44%
Progressive: (Lab/Lib/Green) 49%
(YouGov 7-8 Sept)
That's because Starmer has done some work to move away from identity politics. His verbal rhetoric against immigrants has been similar to the Tories. Whether he actually succeeds is quite a different thing. If you put Corbyn in charge of Labour today, those votes will go back to the Tories."
Again, maybe, but I cannot remember a time when the right wing ever polled over 50% in any of its guises. We’d only find out for sure if your take has any credence if a left wing Labour Party emerged as you say.
You say identity politics has been the catalyst for a lurch to the right but don’t underestimate the popularity of taxing the rich amongst those culturally right/economically left types either. It has majority support amongst the UK electorate.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Left wing identity politics driven focused on minority race, religion, sex and sexuality has been damaging to them whereas the right wing identity politics around nationalism and culture hasn't been damaging to them. People who were driven away by left wing identity politics found a home in right wing identity politics.
Maybe. But if you look at current polling, the overall Conservative/Progressive split remains similar. So I’m not convinced. The vote has merely become more fragmented.
Right (Con/Ref) 44%
Progressive: (Lab/Lib/Green) 49%
(YouGov 7-8 Sept)
That's because Starmer has done some work to move away from identity politics. His verbal rhetoric against immigrants has been similar to the Tories. Whether he actually succeeds is quite a different thing. If you put Corbyn in charge of Labour today, those votes will go back to the Tories.
Again, maybe, but I cannot remember a time when the right wing ever polled over 50% in any of its guises. We’d only find out for sure if your take has any credence if a left wing Labour Party emerged as you say.
You say identity politics has been the catalyst for a lurch to the right but don’t underestimate the popularity of taxing the rich amongst those culturally right/economically left types either. It has majority support amongst the UK electorate.
"
Sure, taxing the rich could be the carrot for some of them. But if I have to guess who among Farage and any left wing politician will convince more people to vote their way, the answer is easy. Farage simply has a better track record.
It would be interesting to see what percentage of voters shift to Corbyn's party. But unfortunately, it looks like the party is still infighting over... you guessed it right - Identity politics issues. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I cannot remember a time when the right wing ever polled over 50% in any of its guises.
Can you point to a time when the left wing has polled more than 50%?"
Look at the conversation again. I was pointing out there seems to be a ceiling to right wing support in the country.
No, left wing support has never topped 50% either as far as I’m aware. Though what could be categorised as ‘progressive’ parties as a collective probably has. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I cannot remember a time when the right wing ever polled over 50% in any of its guises."
"Can you point to a time when the left wing has polled more than 50%?"
"Look at the conversation again. I was pointing out there seems to be a ceiling to right wing support in the country.
No, left wing support has never topped 50% either as far as I’m aware. Though what could be categorised as ‘progressive’ parties as a collective probably has."
So if the same limit applies to both sides, what did you intend to achieve by stating that the limit applied to one side, and not mentioning the other? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It looks more and more the reason for it was due to kirks religious belief, the next move is for them to decide the sentencing of tyler, kirks message will grow even more now too r.i.p."
I hope not. I don't wish death on anyone, ever.
CKs opinions were designed to create division and conflict. That's not good for any society.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I just rewatched a youtube video from some time ago when Kirk was debating at Cambridge.
Anyone under the misapprehension that Kirk was an honest debater or an intellectual of any standing should look it up - Rationality Rules : Exactly How Charlie Kirk got schooled by a Cambridge Student.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I just rewatched a youtube video from some time ago when Kirk was debating at Cambridge.
Anyone under the misapprehension that Kirk was an honest debater or an intellectual of any standing should look it up - Rationality Rules : Exactly How Charlie Kirk got schooled by a Cambridge Student.
"
I've seen some of his "debates".
Have you also watched Dean Withers? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've seen some of his "debates".
Have you also watched Dean Withers?
The very brief Jubilee debate where Kirk seems confused about IUD's? Or is there more?
"
CK only debated with DW once, CK said in interview the DW was intelligent and looked forward to debating him again. The invitation was offered, but unfortunately was not accepted before CK died.
DW has a platform on tikky tock where he debates.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
So if the same limit applies to both sides, what did you intend to achieve by stating that the limit applied to one side, and not mentioning the other?"
Read through the conversation & it should be obvious why I was pointing out the ceiling of right wing support. The person I was conversing with was pointing out a loss of support on the left because of woke politics. I was pointing out that doesn’t necessarily mean an overall increase in support on the right.
Has it been considered the votes the right might have lost?
Pro EU Tories?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So if the same limit applies to both sides, what did you intend to achieve by stating that the limit applied to one side, and not mentioning the other?"
"Read through the conversation & it should be obvious why I was pointing out the ceiling of right wing support. The person I was conversing with was pointing out a loss of support on the left because of woke politics. I was pointing out that doesn’t necessarily mean an overall increase in support on the right."
I can see your thinking. But the right wouldn't need a corresponding increase. If one side's supporters lose faith and don't vote, the other will win by default. Just like the last election. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 33 weeks ago
|
"It will be interesting to see how many people actually vote in the next GE. The last GE had the second lowest turnout since 1992. "
My guess is it will be high.
People will be desperate to kick Starmer out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So if the same limit applies to both sides, what did you intend to achieve by stating that the limit applied to one side, and not mentioning the other?
Read through the conversation & it should be obvious why I was pointing out the ceiling of right wing support. The person I was conversing with was pointing out a loss of support on the left because of woke politics. I was pointing out that doesn’t necessarily mean an overall increase in support on the right.
I can see your thinking. But the right wouldn't need a corresponding increase. If one side's supporters lose faith and don't vote, the other will win by default. Just like the last election."
Well we are also in the unusual position where the right wing vote is split aren’t we & that has consequences in a FPTP voting system especially. That has never been the case in my lifetime, the split is usually only on the progressive side & at the moment at least, it doesn’t quite look like Reform have enough support to win an overall majority on their own. Though a Tory/Reform coalition might be possible…
Don’t underestimate Labour either. As poor as they have been, if there is a genuine threat of a Farage premiership, people who voted Green or Liberal might, just might, still collectively tick that box for Labour just to try & stop Farage as they are usually the largest party on the progressive side.
Anyhow, a lot of time to pass before the next election, so we will see. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 33 weeks ago
|
"So if the same limit applies to both sides, what did you intend to achieve by stating that the limit applied to one side, and not mentioning the other?
Read through the conversation & it should be obvious why I was pointing out the ceiling of right wing support. The person I was conversing with was pointing out a loss of support on the left because of woke politics. I was pointing out that doesn’t necessarily mean an overall increase in support on the right.
I can see your thinking. But the right wouldn't need a corresponding increase. If one side's supporters lose faith and don't vote, the other will win by default. Just like the last election.
Well we are also in the unusual position where the right wing vote is split aren’t we & that has consequences in a FPTP voting system especially. That has never been the case in my lifetime, the split is usually only on the progressive side & at the moment at least, it doesn’t quite look like Reform have enough support to win an overall majority on their own. Though a Tory/Reform coalition might be possible…
Don’t underestimate Labour either. As poor as they have been, if there is a genuine threat of a Farage premiership, people who voted Green or Liberal might, just might, still collectively tick that box for Labour just to try & stop Farage as they are usually the largest party on the progressive side.
Anyhow, a lot of time to pass before the next election, so we will see."
It simply isn’t correct to state that Reform “don’t have enough support to win an overall majority”.
The latest Election Maps Nowcast from yesterday has the results of a general election if held today as the following based on current data:
RFM: 352 (+347), 31.0% - (54 Seat Maj.)
LAB: 107 (-304), 21.5%
LDM: 74 (+2), 13.3%
SNP: 44 (+35), 2.7%
CON: 31 (-90), 17.5%
GRN: 7 (+3), 9.4%
PLC: 6 (+2), 1.0%
Oth: 10 (+5), 3.7%
Election Maps did the second most accurate forecast of the 2024 General Election after YouGov MRP. His latest Nowcast is the first to have Reform top 350 seats.
You are right of course that nobody can predict the future.
Aggregate results of Council elections since 2025 local elections show a similar meltdown for Labour:
RFM: 36 (+31)
LDM: 28 (+8)
CON: 13 (-11)
LAB: 10 (-24)
GRN: 7 (+3)
Ind: 4 (-2)
SNP: 1 (=)
PLC: 1 (=)
Local: 1 (-5)
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So if the same limit applies to both sides, what did you intend to achieve by stating that the limit applied to one side, and not mentioning the other?
Read through the conversation & it should be obvious why I was pointing out the ceiling of right wing support. The person I was conversing with was pointing out a loss of support on the left because of woke politics. I was pointing out that doesn’t necessarily mean an overall increase in support on the right.
I can see your thinking. But the right wouldn't need a corresponding increase. If one side's supporters lose faith and don't vote, the other will win by default. Just like the last election.
Well we are also in the unusual position where the right wing vote is split aren’t we & that has consequences in a FPTP voting system especially. That has never been the case in my lifetime, the split is usually only on the progressive side & at the moment at least, it doesn’t quite look like Reform have enough support to win an overall majority on their own. Though a Tory/Reform coalition might be possible…
Don’t underestimate Labour either. As poor as they have been, if there is a genuine threat of a Farage premiership, people who voted Green or Liberal might, just might, still collectively tick that box for Labour just to try & stop Farage as they are usually the largest party on the progressive side.
Anyhow, a lot of time to pass before the next election, so we will see.
It simply isn’t correct to state that Reform “don’t have enough support to win an overall majority”.
The latest Election Maps Nowcast from yesterday has the results of a general election if held today as the following based on current data:
RFM: 352 (+347), 31.0% - (54 Seat Maj.)
LAB: 107 (-304), 21.5%
LDM: 74 (+2), 13.3%
SNP: 44 (+35), 2.7%
CON: 31 (-90), 17.5%
GRN: 7 (+3), 9.4%
PLC: 6 (+2), 1.0%
Oth: 10 (+5), 3.7%
Election Maps did the second most accurate forecast of the 2024 General Election after YouGov MRP. His latest Nowcast is the first to have Reform top 350 seats.
You are right of course that nobody can predict the future.
Aggregate results of Council elections since 2025 local elections show a similar meltdown for Labour:
RFM: 36 (+31)
LDM: 28 (+8)
CON: 13 (-11)
LAB: 10 (-24)
GRN: 7 (+3)
Ind: 4 (-2)
SNP: 1 (=)
PLC: 1 (=)
Local: 1 (-5)
"
If Reform can get a 54 majority on 31% of the vote I will doff my cap.
YouGov had them on 27% last week though so I’d say it’s very much up in the air.
Also, if you can form a government on only 31% of the vote, I believe that would be the lowest share in history outdoing even Starmer so it again shows what a stitch up FPTP is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think we can all see how unbiased you are .
Also how coherently your present ‘facts’ without any leaning towards your views , and total understanding of what it takes to make a decent society with citizens who care about each other .
Youre a credit to all who you support. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 33 weeks ago
|
"So if the same limit applies to both sides, what did you intend to achieve by stating that the limit applied to one side, and not mentioning the other?
Read through the conversation & it should be obvious why I was pointing out the ceiling of right wing support. The person I was conversing with was pointing out a loss of support on the left because of woke politics. I was pointing out that doesn’t necessarily mean an overall increase in support on the right.
I can see your thinking. But the right wouldn't need a corresponding increase. If one side's supporters lose faith and don't vote, the other will win by default. Just like the last election.
Well we are also in the unusual position where the right wing vote is split aren’t we & that has consequences in a FPTP voting system especially. That has never been the case in my lifetime, the split is usually only on the progressive side & at the moment at least, it doesn’t quite look like Reform have enough support to win an overall majority on their own. Though a Tory/Reform coalition might be possible…
Don’t underestimate Labour either. As poor as they have been, if there is a genuine threat of a Farage premiership, people who voted Green or Liberal might, just might, still collectively tick that box for Labour just to try & stop Farage as they are usually the largest party on the progressive side.
Anyhow, a lot of time to pass before the next election, so we will see.
It simply isn’t correct to state that Reform “don’t have enough support to win an overall majority”.
The latest Election Maps Nowcast from yesterday has the results of a general election if held today as the following based on current data:
RFM: 352 (+347), 31.0% - (54 Seat Maj.)
LAB: 107 (-304), 21.5%
LDM: 74 (+2), 13.3%
SNP: 44 (+35), 2.7%
CON: 31 (-90), 17.5%
GRN: 7 (+3), 9.4%
PLC: 6 (+2), 1.0%
Oth: 10 (+5), 3.7%
Election Maps did the second most accurate forecast of the 2024 General Election after YouGov MRP. His latest Nowcast is the first to have Reform top 350 seats.
You are right of course that nobody can predict the future.
Aggregate results of Council elections since 2025 local elections show a similar meltdown for Labour:
RFM: 36 (+31)
LDM: 28 (+8)
CON: 13 (-11)
LAB: 10 (-24)
GRN: 7 (+3)
Ind: 4 (-2)
SNP: 1 (=)
PLC: 1 (=)
Local: 1 (-5)
If Reform can get a 54 majority on 31% of the vote I will doff my cap.
YouGov had them on 27% last week though so I’d say it’s very much up in the air.
Also, if you can form a government on only 31% of the vote, I believe that would be the lowest share in history outdoing even Starmer so it again shows what a stitch up FPTP is."
Starmer’s finished. It’s just a matter of time before he gets binned.
The problem Labour has got is that this bunch of clowns is their A team. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
