FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Gorton and Denton By Election 2
Gorton and Denton By Election 2
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looks like they showed an ad in Urdu with a picture of Starmer/Lammy with Netanyahu/Modi just to appeal to Muslim votes. If one still doesn't see the danger in voting for these sectarians, nothing will." Never knew Gaza was a suburb of Greater Manchester 🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If only the alternative was not far worse Than Labour Reform uk who want a French style insurance based NHS. Personally I am voting Liberal Democrat fed up of the rest." Good luck with that ! I imagine they will come 5th but who knows. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If only the alternative was not far worse Than Labour Reform uk who want a French style insurance based NHS. Personally I am voting Liberal Democrat fed up of the rest." Are you actually voting on Thursday or is this a statement of intent for the next time that you can vote? If you are in the constituency, are there any local areas of concern? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour out is all that matters More to come on 7 May Plymouth Labour chair not standing in May, they know what’s coming " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No I live in South Dorset I will be voting Liberal Democrat next general election." Ah I see  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would predict it will go 1st Greens 2nd Reform UK 3rd Labour party 4th Liberal Democrats 5th Conservatives 6th Advance uk" I would say you're probably spot on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No I live in South Dorset I will be voting Liberal Democrat next general election." Thanks for clarifying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It'll be interesting to see whether the pollsters got it right, and even more interesting to see what the turnout is." Yes, turnout will be key I think. Also postal vote could be a factor. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Postal voting is high umoungst pensioners Conservative voters and Reform voters what's your point?" I'm not sure I understand? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hasn't that got all the candidates names wrong ? 🤭" Slop. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hasn't that got all the candidates names wrong ? 🤭 Slop." You did warn us ! 🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Owen Jones Final poll Green 30 Reform 28 Labour 28 Tory 6 LD 4" If the polling is accurate then the difference between the top 3 is within the margin of error I would think. Could labour hold this seat after all? I think Starmer would be dancing in the street if they do and he would welcome any deflection from the rest of his disasters | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Owen Jones Final poll Green 30 Reform 28 Labour 28 Tory 6 LD 4 If the polling is accurate then the difference between the top 3 is within the margin of error I would think. Could labour hold this seat after all? I think Starmer would be dancing in the street if they do and he would welcome any deflection from the rest of his disasters " It would be good news for Sir Keir although still a huge drop in support from 2024. This was one of the 10 safest Labour seats. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Owen Jones Final poll Green 30 Reform 28 Labour 28 Tory 6 LD 4 If the polling is accurate then the difference between the top 3 is within the margin of error I would think. Could labour hold this seat after all? I think Starmer would be dancing in the street if they do and he would welcome any deflection from the rest of his disasters " I think the greens will tip it but there is always a degree of shy right wing voters not answering polls. Also who knows what degree of tactical voting there will be... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Greens have announced they want to legalise drugs, will go down well in Manchester " The dealers, or the devastated families? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Owen Jones Final poll Green 30 Reform 28 Labour 28 Tory 6 LD 4 If the polling is accurate then the difference between the top 3 is within the margin of error I would think. Could labour hold this seat after all? I think Starmer would be dancing in the street if they do and he would welcome any deflection from the rest of his disasters " I think Reform will end up winning if the polls are this close. The voter turnout for a right wing party is usually higher than a left wing party that relies on the votes of the youngsters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Owen Jones Final poll Green 30 Reform 28 Labour 28 Tory 6 LD 4 If the polling is accurate then the difference between the top 3 is within the margin of error I would think. Could labour hold this seat after all? I think Starmer would be dancing in the street if they do and he would welcome any deflection from the rest of his disasters I think Reform will end up winning if the polls are this close. The voter turnout for a right wing party is usually higher than a left wing party that relies on the votes of the youngsters." That's a good point. Also polls usually lean left - at the last GE Labour were polling at 40% and only got 34% of vote. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Owen Jones Final poll Green 30 Reform 28 Labour 28 Tory 6 LD 4 If the polling is accurate then the difference between the top 3 is within the margin of error I would think. Could labour hold this seat after all? I think Starmer would be dancing in the street if they do and he would welcome any deflection from the rest of his disasters I think Reform will end up winning if the polls are this close. The voter turnout for a right wing party is usually higher than a left wing party that relies on the votes of the youngsters. That's a good point. Also polls usually lean left - at the last GE Labour were polling at 40% and only got 34% of vote." Yeah same happened with Brexit and Trump's wins if I remember correctly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Owen Jones Final poll Green 30 Reform 28 Labour 28 Tory 6 LD 4 If the polling is accurate then the difference between the top 3 is within the margin of error I would think. Could labour hold this seat after all? I think Starmer would be dancing in the street if they do and he would welcome any deflection from the rest of his disasters I think Reform will end up winning if the polls are this close. The voter turnout for a right wing party is usually higher than a left wing party that relies on the votes of the youngsters. That's a good point. Also polls usually lean left - at the last GE Labour were polling at 40% and only got 34% of vote. Yeah same happened with Brexit and Trump's wins if I remember correctly " Don't think it's deliberate, more a mix of left winger less likely to vote as you say, and 'shy' right wingers who don't tell pollers the truth. The poll companies have tried adjusting but still seems to be an issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Owen Jones Final poll Green 30 Reform 28 Labour 28 Tory 6 LD 4 If the polling is accurate then the difference between the top 3 is within the margin of error I would think. Could labour hold this seat after all? I think Starmer would be dancing in the street if they do and he would welcome any deflection from the rest of his disasters I think Reform will end up winning if the polls are this close. The voter turnout for a right wing party is usually higher than a left wing party that relies on the votes of the youngsters. That's a good point. Also polls usually lean left - at the last GE Labour were polling at 40% and only got 34% of vote. Yeah same happened with Brexit and Trump's wins if I remember correctly " I remember in 2016 the US polls were miles out. My sister was working in Dallas at the time and told me to bet on Trump but I thought he had no chance.😭😭 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Owen Jones Final poll Green 30 Reform 28 Labour 28 Tory 6 LD 4 If the polling is accurate then the difference between the top 3 is within the margin of error I would think. Could labour hold this seat after all? I think Starmer would be dancing in the street if they do and he would welcome any deflection from the rest of his disasters I think Reform will end up winning if the polls are this close. The voter turnout for a right wing party is usually higher than a left wing party that relies on the votes of the youngsters. That's a good point. Also polls usually lean left - at the last GE Labour were polling at 40% and only got 34% of vote. Yeah same happened with Brexit and Trump's wins if I remember correctly I remember in 2016 the US polls were miles out. My sister was working in Dallas at the time and told me to bet on Trump but I thought he had no chance.😭😭" Yeah that came as a shocker at that time. Everyone just assumed that it was an easy win for Democrats. All the corporate CEOs were posting sad messages on social media after the results. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The amount of scaremongering I've seen is ridiculous. People saying reform are wanting to privatise the NHS, people saying greens are making drugs accessible to all. Drives me crazy how many people believe things purely on social media. 🤦♂️ just do some bloody research. Critical thinking and self education is dying. " So the Lib Dems don't want to invade Belgium ? 😮 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Owen Jones Final poll Green 30 Reform 28 Labour 28 Tory 6 LD 4 If the polling is accurate then the difference between the top 3 is within the margin of error I would think. Could labour hold this seat after all? I think Starmer would be dancing in the street if they do and he would welcome any deflection from the rest of his disasters I think Reform will end up winning if the polls are this close. The voter turnout for a right wing party is usually higher than a left wing party that relies on the votes of the youngsters. That's a good point. Also polls usually lean left - at the last GE Labour were polling at 40% and only got 34% of vote." The 2017 poll / GE result shows the poll does not lean left | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Latest odds ,, Green 8/13 ,, Reform 3/1 ,, Labour 5/1 ,," No, Latest are Green4-6 Reform11-4 Labour7-2 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Latest odds ,, Green 8/13 ,, Reform 3/1 ,, Labour 5/1 ,, No, Latest are Green4-6 Reform11-4 Labour7-2 " Obviously depends where you get your information from , mine was oddschecker, and still showing the same ,, might be close but fear it might not be , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah same happened with Brexit and Trump's wins if I remember correctly. Don't think it's deliberate, more a mix of left winger less likely to vote as you say, and 'shy' right wingers who don't tell pollers the truth. The poll companies have tried adjusting but still seems to be an issue." I think we have to remember that most journalists are lefties. So the question being asked is probably “are you one of those kind, caring people who will vote for a me of those kind caring parties who believe in caring for kittens and puppies? Or are you one of those far right, fascist who will be voting for one of those Nazi parties who want to kill all the kittens and puppies along with all the brown people.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If only the alternative was not far worse Than Labour Reform uk who want a French style insurance based NHS. Personally I am voting Liberal Democrat fed up of the rest." You’re voting in the by-election from Weymouth? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think we have to remember that most journalists are lefties. " Most journalists are lefties? How do you arrive at that conclusion, especially as most media companies are owned and controlled by billionaires? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would predict it will go 1st Greens 2nd Reform UK 3rd Labour party 4th Liberal Democrats 5th Conservatives 6th Advance uk" Advance UK standing is going to split the Reform vote… If Reform lose, but would’ve won with the few extra votes that went to Advance UK…  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I take it this is a joke seriously the Liberal Democrats the most moderate centrist least offensive party you can get." I’ve voted LD in the past purely as a tactical move. As a party, I think they’re basically nuts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A win for the Greens in this by-election could be a gift for Reform, almost more than the Greens (although not from an institutional perspective). Many would then see Labour as non-viable and the Greens as the party of Muslims and immigrants, who campaign on sectarian foreign issues in foreign languages, thus reinforcing the Reform narrative about cultural annihilation. Reform could easily pick up many (traditionally Labour) working-class votes, as did the Conservatives a few years ago. What would be interesting is to see whether the Greens will pick up much of the national Muslim and immigrant vote generally after this, which could take them from a fringe party to a mid-level party. A Reform win might energise the party and rally the troops, but it could also galvanise the left, who are clearly (as a group) the majority in this constituency, but who are dividing their vote. If Reform wins, expect tactical voting to become more mainstream. Whatever happens, Reform emerges stronger and Labour much weaker (even if they ultimately win). Nationally, Greens could scoop up much of their social justice voters, even as Reform pick up the traditional white working class votes." I think this by election shows why effective tactical voting by the left will be very difficult at the next GE, which as you say is good news for Reform. In 2024 the left were united in wanting the Tories out, and the Greens only had a few seats they could win, but next time the Greens and Lib Dems will have a realistic chance of taking many Labour seats, and they will be divided between being anti-Reform and anti-Labour, as in Gorton and Denton. Also as we see in Gorton, there is huge hostility on the ground between Labour and Green activists- that very old pattern of the left dividing and letting the right win. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A win for the Greens in this by-election could be a gift for Reform, almost more than the Greens (although not from an institutional perspective). Many would then see Labour as non-viable and the Greens as the party of Muslims and immigrants, who campaign on sectarian foreign issues in foreign languages, thus reinforcing the Reform narrative about cultural annihilation. Reform could easily pick up many (traditionally Labour) working-class votes, as did the Conservatives a few years ago. What would be interesting is to see whether the Greens will pick up much of the national Muslim and immigrant vote generally after this, which could take them from a fringe party to a mid-level party. A Reform win might energise the party and rally the troops, but it could also galvanise the left, who are clearly (as a group) the majority in this constituency, but who are dividing their vote. If Reform wins, expect tactical voting to become more mainstream. Whatever happens, Reform emerges stronger and Labour much weaker (even if they ultimately win). Nationally, Greens could scoop up much of their social justice voters, even as Reform pick up the traditional white working class votes." The issue of LGBTQ policies that the Greens hold and advocate for might be an issue for many in the Muslim community..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think we have to remember that most journalists are lefties. Most journalists are lefties? How do you arrive at that conclusion, especially as most media companies are owned and controlled by billionaires?"
The average news stand further makes the claim your replying to look somewhat strange..
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think we have to remember that most journalists are lefties. Most journalists are lefties? How do you arrive at that conclusion, especially as most media companies are owned and controlled by billionaires?" Firstly, the fact that you seem to link success with right of centre politics is very interesting. True of course. But not all media moguls are right wing. The Maxwells are an obvious example. Secondly, the university indoctrination. Whist you don’t have to have gone to uni to be a journalist, it would be all but impossible to work for a big media company if you haven’t. And 3 years of brainwashing is hard to resist. Thirdly, while there are a few right leaning newspapers, nearly all tv and radio news is far left. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The issue of LGBTQ policies that the Greens hold and advocate for might be an issue for many in the Muslim community..?" Well, you would think… Many don’t seem to join the dots. Years ago, a Brighton green councillor got slung out of the party because she was a Christian who was against gay marriage. These days, the greens are pro-everything I’d imagine Muslims are against apart from Palestine. This is conveniently ignored because they seem to need each other. I’m surprised that this isn’t more of an issue, but then the basket case Your Party had similar problems and looked what happened there. There maybe trouble ahead… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Thirdly, while there are a few right leaning newspapers, nearly all tv and radio news is far left. " The 'few' right/centre right print media far outnumber the left/centre left papers, although they are all in decline and seem to only appeal to those aged over 30.. Ditto mainstream TV, decline wise.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The issue of LGBTQ policies that the Greens hold and advocate for might be an issue for many in the Muslim community..?" Not until they hold a majority: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A win for the Greens in this by-election could be a gift for Reform, almost more than the Greens (although not from an institutional perspective). Many would then see Labour as non-viable and the Greens as the party of Muslims and immigrants, who campaign on sectarian foreign issues in foreign languages, thus reinforcing the Reform narrative about cultural annihilation. Reform could easily pick up many (traditionally Labour) working-class votes, as did the Conservatives a few years ago. What would be interesting is to see whether the Greens will pick up much of the national Muslim and immigrant vote generally after this, which could take them from a fringe party to a mid-level party. A Reform win might energise the party and rally the troops, but it could also galvanise the left, who are clearly (as a group) the majority in this constituency, but who are dividing their vote. If Reform wins, expect tactical voting to become more mainstream. Whatever happens, Reform emerges stronger and Labour much weaker (even if they ultimately win). Nationally, Greens could scoop up much of their social justice voters, even as Reform pick up the traditional white working class votes. I think this by election shows why effective tactical voting by the left will be very difficult at the next GE, which as you say is good news for Reform. In 2024 the left were united in wanting the Tories out, and the Greens only had a few seats they could win, but next time the Greens and Lib Dems will have a realistic chance of taking many Labour seats, and they will be divided between being anti-Reform and anti-Labour, as in Gorton and Denton. Also as we see in Gorton, there is huge hostility on the ground between Labour and Green activists- that very old pattern of the left dividing and letting the right win." Labour's best bet might be to move to the middle ground while the Conservatives are still weak, rather than compete directly with the far left and social justice segments. They will probably retain/attract more than they would lose by doing that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think we have to remember that most journalists are lefties. Most journalists are lefties? How do you arrive at that conclusion, especially as most media companies are owned and controlled by billionaires? Firstly, the fact that you seem to link success with right of centre politics is very interesting. True of course. But not all media moguls are right wing. The Maxwells are an obvious example. Secondly, the university indoctrination. Whist you don’t have to have gone to uni to be a journalist, it would be all but impossible to work for a big media company if you haven’t. And 3 years of brainwashing is hard to resist. Thirdly, while there are a few right leaning newspapers, nearly all tv and radio news is far left. " Why do you think going to uni involves brainwashing? And what are you being brainwashed with? All tv and radio news is far left? The BBC director general was a Tory, I imagine he must have been shocked to find out he'd been helping in putting out communist news all this time! Boggles my mind what kind of country people think they live in | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think we have to remember that most journalists are lefties. Most journalists are lefties? How do you arrive at that conclusion, especially as most media companies are owned and controlled by billionaires? Firstly, the fact that you seem to link success with right of centre politics is very interesting. True of course. But not all media moguls are right wing. The Maxwells are an obvious example. Secondly, the university indoctrination. Whist you don’t have to have gone to uni to be a journalist, it would be all but impossible to work for a big media company if you haven’t. And 3 years of brainwashing is hard to resist. Thirdly, while there are a few right leaning newspapers, nearly all tv and radio news is far left. Why do you think going to uni involves brainwashing? And what are you being brainwashed with? All tv and radio news is far left? The BBC director general was a Tory, I imagine he must have been shocked to find out he'd been helping in putting out communist news all this time! Boggles my mind what kind of country people think they live in" Well it’s not brainwashing for all, quite a few are already far left activists The director general is not a journalist, they are the director general. The clue is in the job title. But probably the most far left of all media so I guess either he didn’t have much say, or was too scared to speak up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think we have to remember that most journalists are lefties. Most journalists are lefties? How do you arrive at that conclusion, especially as most media companies are owned and controlled by billionaires? Firstly, the fact that you seem to link success with right of centre politics is very interesting. True of course. But not all media moguls are right wing. The Maxwells are an obvious example. Secondly, the university indoctrination. Whist you don’t have to have gone to uni to be a journalist, it would be all but impossible to work for a big media company if you haven’t. And 3 years of brainwashing is hard to resist. Thirdly, while there are a few right leaning newspapers, nearly all tv and radio news is far left. Why do you think going to uni involves brainwashing? And what are you being brainwashed with? All tv and radio news is far left? The BBC director general was a Tory, I imagine he must have been shocked to find out he'd been helping in putting out communist news all this time! Boggles my mind what kind of country people think they live in Well it’s not brainwashing for all, quite a few are already far left activists The director general is not a journalist, they are the director general. The clue is in the job title. But probably the most far left of all media so I guess either he didn’t have much say, or was too scared to speak up. " So everyone at university is a far left activist or (on top of getting an education) is being brainwashed by far left professors? What are students being brainwashed with..? These far left graduates, of which there are millions, then go out into the world with their far left agendas, infiltrating news outlets with their now far left ideology. And with all that, the UK has had Tory governments and a (at best) centre left government who are going to last one cycle? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think we have to remember that most journalists are lefties. Most journalists are lefties? How do you arrive at that conclusion, especially as most media companies are owned and controlled by billionaires? Firstly, the fact that you seem to link success with right of centre politics is very interesting. True of course. But not all media moguls are right wing. The Maxwells are an obvious example. Secondly, the university indoctrination. Whist you don’t have to have gone to uni to be a journalist, it would be all but impossible to work for a big media company if you haven’t. And 3 years of brainwashing is hard to resist. Thirdly, while there are a few right leaning newspapers, nearly all tv and radio news is far left. Why do you think going to uni involves brainwashing? And what are you being brainwashed with? All tv and radio news is far left? The BBC director general was a Tory, I imagine he must have been shocked to find out he'd been helping in putting out communist news all this time! Boggles my mind what kind of country people think they live in Well it’s not brainwashing for all, quite a few are already far left activists The director general is not a journalist, they are the director general. The clue is in the job title. But probably the most far left of all media so I guess either he didn’t have much say, or was too scared to speak up. So everyone at university is a far left activist or (on top of getting an education) is being brainwashed by far left professors? What are students being brainwashed with..? These far left graduates, of which there are millions, then go out into the world with their far left agendas, infiltrating news outlets with their now far left ideology. And with all that, the UK has had Tory governments and a (at best) centre left government who are going to last one cycle? " Not everyone, but a large proportion. It’s never “everyone”. There aren’t millions of graduates. In the UK roughly 800,000 graduate each year. So that’s like less than 2% of the population so hardly a significant voting block, (in answer to your last point) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A win for the Greens in this by-election could be a gift for Reform, almost more than the Greens (although not from an institutional perspective). Many would then see Labour as non-viable and the Greens as the party of Muslims and immigrants, who campaign on sectarian foreign issues in foreign languages, thus reinforcing the Reform narrative about cultural annihilation. Reform could easily pick up many (traditionally Labour) working-class votes, as did the Conservatives a few years ago. What would be interesting is to see whether the Greens will pick up much of the national Muslim and immigrant vote generally after this, which could take them from a fringe party to a mid-level party. A Reform win might energise the party and rally the troops, but it could also galvanise the left, who are clearly (as a group) the majority in this constituency, but who are dividing their vote. If Reform wins, expect tactical voting to become more mainstream. Whatever happens, Reform emerges stronger and Labour much weaker (even if they ultimately win). Nationally, Greens could scoop up much of their social justice voters, even as Reform pick up the traditional white working class votes. I think this by election shows why effective tactical voting by the left will be very difficult at the next GE, which as you say is good news for Reform. In 2024 the left were united in wanting the Tories out, and the Greens only had a few seats they could win, but next time the Greens and Lib Dems will have a realistic chance of taking many Labour seats, and they will be divided between being anti-Reform and anti-Labour, as in Gorton and Denton. Also as we see in Gorton, there is huge hostility on the ground between Labour and Green activists- that very old pattern of the left dividing and letting the right win. Labour's best bet might be to move to the middle ground while the Conservatives are still weak, rather than compete directly with the far left and social justice segments. They will probably retain/attract more than they would lose by doing that." In theory I think that's a good idea but I don't think the membership/activist base would allow that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think we have to remember that most journalists are lefties. Most journalists are lefties? How do you arrive at that conclusion, especially as most media companies are owned and controlled by billionaires? Firstly, the fact that you seem to link success with right of centre politics is very interesting. True of course. But not all media moguls are right wing. The Maxwells are an obvious example. Secondly, the university indoctrination. Whist you don’t have to have gone to uni to be a journalist, it would be all but impossible to work for a big media company if you haven’t. And 3 years of brainwashing is hard to resist. Thirdly, while there are a few right leaning newspapers, nearly all tv and radio news is far left. Why do you think going to uni involves brainwashing? And what are you being brainwashed with? All tv and radio news is far left? The BBC director general was a Tory, I imagine he must have been shocked to find out he'd been helping in putting out communist news all this time! Boggles my mind what kind of country people think they live in Well it’s not brainwashing for all, quite a few are already far left activists The director general is not a journalist, they are the director general. The clue is in the job title. But probably the most far left of all media so I guess either he didn’t have much say, or was too scared to speak up. So everyone at university is a far left activist or (on top of getting an education) is being brainwashed by far left professors? What are students being brainwashed with..? These far left graduates, of which there are millions, then go out into the world with their far left agendas, infiltrating news outlets with their now far left ideology. And with all that, the UK has had Tory governments and a (at best) centre left government who are going to last one cycle? Not everyone, but a large proportion. It’s never “everyone”. There aren’t millions of graduates. In the UK roughly 800,000 graduate each year. So that’s like less than 2% of the population so hardly a significant voting block, (in answer to your last point)" Right so that's 800,000 graduates getting brainwashed every year. Does the brainwashing only last 1 year after they graduate, or are they brainwashed for life? If it only lasts a year, then what's the point? If it lasts longer, where are all these brainwashed far-left voters? Again, what are they being brainwashed with? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think we have to remember that most journalists are lefties. Most journalists are lefties? How do you arrive at that conclusion, especially as most media companies are owned and controlled by billionaires? Firstly, the fact that you seem to link success with right of centre politics is very interesting. True of course. But not all media moguls are right wing. The Maxwells are an obvious example. Secondly, the university indoctrination. Whist you don’t have to have gone to uni to be a journalist, it would be all but impossible to work for a big media company if you haven’t. And 3 years of brainwashing is hard to resist. Thirdly, while there are a few right leaning newspapers, nearly all tv and radio news is far left. Why do you think going to uni involves brainwashing? And what are you being brainwashed with? All tv and radio news is far left? The BBC director general was a Tory, I imagine he must have been shocked to find out he'd been helping in putting out communist news all this time! Boggles my mind what kind of country people think they live in Well it’s not brainwashing for all, quite a few are already far left activists The director general is not a journalist, they are the director general. The clue is in the job title. But probably the most far left of all media so I guess either he didn’t have much say, or was too scared to speak up. So everyone at university is a far left activist or (on top of getting an education) is being brainwashed by far left professors? What are students being brainwashed with..? These far left graduates, of which there are millions, then go out into the world with their far left agendas, infiltrating news outlets with their now far left ideology. And with all that, the UK has had Tory governments and a (at best) centre left government who are going to last one cycle? Not everyone, but a large proportion. It’s never “everyone”. There aren’t millions of graduates. In the UK roughly 800,000 graduate each year. So that’s like less than 2% of the population so hardly a significant voting block, (in answer to your last point) Right so that's 800,000 graduates getting brainwashed every year. Does the brainwashing only last 1 year after they graduate, or are they brainwashed for life? If it only lasts a year, then what's the point? If it lasts longer, where are all these brainwashed far-left voters? Again, what are they being brainwashed with? " Im not a graduate, I started work the day after I finished school. But based on my observations I’d say it depends on exposure. Some seem to cling on to it for life, people such as civil servants, teachers, human rights lawyers, union officials, football commentators etc. Some seem to come to their senses quite quickly. I can’t comment on why they do it, i assume it’s the same reason that people who don’t work in a uni push their beliefs and ideology onto others. Why do you try to persuade people to your point of view? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry I should have said I am a Liberal Democrat supporter." Right, just need to find the other one 🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Or the Conservatives cost reform uk the by election race." Firstly I should state I’m not a reform supporter. But at the last election, 75% of the votes cast in this constituency were for a left wing party. So for Reform to make the inroads into that block that they have, when the Greens are enjoying a very late honeymoon period, it’s nothing short of miraculous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hi Mate I can assure you that's not true the Liberal Democrats are a centrist moderate party let's go through their policies. Low fair taxation abolishing buisness rates. Proportional representation voting. 8000 extra gp doctors. Mental health to be treated the same as physical health. A frequent flyer tax. Ending the sewage dumping crisis. Fining people who play loud music on trains and buses. Increase th digital services tax on Facebook apple twitter Google amazon etc." So your leadership should be asking themselves, assuming votes go as the polls are showing, why at a time when the labour vote is totally collapsing nationally and especially in this constituency, are you not the leading left of centre party? Lib Dem’s should be winning this election hands down and they won’t even be in the top 3 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I disagree Gorton and Denton is a very left wing seat Labour has always held Gorton and denton until now. The Liberal Democrats have no chance." Are you one of their MP’s? Because you totally ignored everything I said and spouted message | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I disagree Gorton and Denton is a very left wing seat Labour has always held Gorton and denton until now. The Liberal Democrats have no chance." Shouldn't that mean that Reform also have no chance? And yet they seem to be doing quite well in the polls. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I disagree Gorton and Denton is a very left wing seat Labour has always held Gorton and denton until now. The Liberal Democrats have no chance." We live in a world of reactionary, social media politics where the old rules don’t exist any more. We’re going to see a lot of seats flipped every 4-5 years into we fall back to a period of economic and social stability | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform uk are turning out people who don't usually vote." As did Corbyn in 2017. The centre is increasingly no-longer where elections are won. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform uk are turning out people who don't usually vote." Because they're a populist party | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reform uk are turning out people who don't usually vote." A higher turnout is always a good thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think we have to remember that most journalists are lefties. Most journalists are lefties? How do you arrive at that conclusion, especially as most media companies are owned and controlled by billionaires? Firstly, the fact that you seem to link success with right of centre politics is very interesting. True of course. But not all media moguls are right wing. The Maxwells are an obvious example. Secondly, the university indoctrination. Whist you don’t have to have gone to uni to be a journalist, it would be all but impossible to work for a big media company if you haven’t. And 3 years of brainwashing is hard to resist. Thirdly, while there are a few right leaning newspapers, nearly all tv and radio news is far left. Why do you think going to uni involves brainwashing? And what are you being brainwashed with? All tv and radio news is far left? The BBC director general was a Tory, I imagine he must have been shocked to find out he'd been helping in putting out communist news all this time! Boggles my mind what kind of country people think they live in Well it’s not brainwashing for all, quite a few are already far left activists The director general is not a journalist, they are the director general. The clue is in the job title. But probably the most far left of all media so I guess either he didn’t have much say, or was too scared to speak up. So everyone at university is a far left activist or (on top of getting an education) is being brainwashed by far left professors? What are students being brainwashed with..? These far left graduates, of which there are millions, then go out into the world with their far left agendas, infiltrating news outlets with their now far left ideology. And with all that, the UK has had Tory governments and a (at best) centre left government who are going to last one cycle? Not everyone, but a large proportion. It’s never “everyone”. There aren’t millions of graduates. In the UK roughly 800,000 graduate each year. So that’s like less than 2% of the population so hardly a significant voting block, (in answer to your last point) Right so that's 800,000 graduates getting brainwashed every year. Does the brainwashing only last 1 year after they graduate, or are they brainwashed for life? If it only lasts a year, then what's the point? If it lasts longer, where are all these brainwashed far-left voters? Again, what are they being brainwashed with? Im not a graduate, I started work the day after I finished school. But based on my observations I’d say it depends on exposure. Some seem to cling on to it for life, people such as civil servants, teachers, human rights lawyers, union officials, football commentators etc. Some seem to come to their senses quite quickly. I can’t comment on why they do it, i assume it’s the same reason that people who don’t work in a uni push their beliefs and ideology onto others. Why do you try to persuade people to your point of view? " You've said you're not a graduate, so what is your experience of a university? Who is doing the brainwashing and when? Is it all faculties, or just certain subjects? Based on your observations..? You mean you've looked at some people who've been to uni and if they're left of centre then that's evidence that universities are brainwashing students? (I don't know whether you mean rogue professors or whole institutes) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think we have to remember that most journalists are lefties. Most journalists are lefties? How do you arrive at that conclusion, especially as most media companies are owned and controlled by billionaires? Firstly, the fact that you seem to link success with right of centre politics is very interesting. True of course. But not all media moguls are right wing. The Maxwells are an obvious example. Secondly, the university indoctrination. Whist you don’t have to have gone to uni to be a journalist, it would be all but impossible to work for a big media company if you haven’t. And 3 years of brainwashing is hard to resist. Thirdly, while there are a few right leaning newspapers, nearly all tv and radio news is far left. Why do you think going to uni involves brainwashing? And what are you being brainwashed with? All tv and radio news is far left? The BBC director general was a Tory, I imagine he must have been shocked to find out he'd been helping in putting out communist news all this time! Boggles my mind what kind of country people think they live in Well it’s not brainwashing for all, quite a few are already far left activists The director general is not a journalist, they are the director general. The clue is in the job title. But probably the most far left of all media so I guess either he didn’t have much say, or was too scared to speak up. So everyone at university is a far left activist or (on top of getting an education) is being brainwashed by far left professors? What are students being brainwashed with..? These far left graduates, of which there are millions, then go out into the world with their far left agendas, infiltrating news outlets with their now far left ideology. And with all that, the UK has had Tory governments and a (at best) centre left government who are going to last one cycle? Not everyone, but a large proportion. It’s never “everyone”. There aren’t millions of graduates. In the UK roughly 800,000 graduate each year. So that’s like less than 2% of the population so hardly a significant voting block, (in answer to your last point) Right so that's 800,000 graduates getting brainwashed every year. Does the brainwashing only last 1 year after they graduate, or are they brainwashed for life? If it only lasts a year, then what's the point? If it lasts longer, where are all these brainwashed far-left voters? Again, what are they being brainwashed with? Im not a graduate, I started work the day after I finished school. But based on my observations I’d say it depends on exposure. Some seem to cling on to it for life, people such as civil servants, teachers, human rights lawyers, union officials, football commentators etc. Some seem to come to their senses quite quickly. I can’t comment on why they do it, i assume it’s the same reason that people who don’t work in a uni push their beliefs and ideology onto others. Why do you try to persuade people to your point of view? You've said you're not a graduate, so what is your experience of a university? Who is doing the brainwashing and when? Is it all faculties, or just certain subjects? Based on your observations..? You mean you've looked at some people who've been to uni and if they're left of centre then that's evidence that universities are brainwashing students? (I don't know whether you mean rogue professors or whole institutes) " I have worked at around 20 different universities. That’s my experience. What’s yours | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is the brainwashing done? And why does it only apply to the left? Are the right missing a trick? Should they be taking over social media outlets and spreading their message to the masses in response? " Why does it only apply to the left? That’s a very good question. The answer is fairly obvious I would have thought. A better question would be, why are universities disproportionately left wing institutions compared to society as a whole. Could be accidental, but with the numbers of people who work for them I’d suggest that’s statistically unlikely. So I guess senior uni staff make decisions based on their own political views. Is that actually so shocking to think? Are the right wing missing a trick? Not sure what you mean? Taking over social media outlets? How is that even possible? You’d need the GDP of a small country to take over any of the big outlets, assuming their owners would want to sell, which I think in the case of Meta, X and Google is a big fat no. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I disagree Gorton and Denton is a very left wing seat Labour has always held Gorton and denton until now. The Liberal Democrats have no chance. We live in a world of reactionary, social media politics where the old rules don’t exist any more. We’re going to see a lot of seats flipped every 4-5 years into we fall back to a period of economic and social stability" The new 'stability' may be more instability, in economic and social fields. Reduced employment prospects may lead to lower tax takes,etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is the brainwashing done? And why does it only apply to the left? Are the right missing a trick? Should they be taking over social media outlets and spreading their message to the masses in response? Why does it only apply to the left? That’s a very good question. The answer is fairly obvious I would have thought. A better question would be, why are universities disproportionately left wing institutions compared to society as a whole. Could be accidental, but with the numbers of people who work for them I’d suggest that’s statistically unlikely. So I guess senior uni staff make decisions based on their own political views. Is that actually so shocking to think? Are the right wing missing a trick? Not sure what you mean? Taking over social media outlets? How is that even possible? You’d need the GDP of a small country to take over any of the big outlets, assuming their owners would want to sell, which I think in the case of Meta, X and Google is a big fat no. " Aha I see you missed the tongue in check element re: taking over social media. And university courses are not created willy nilly are they? I thought they had to conform to an educational framework (which is essentially set by the dept. for education). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, are universities ‘disproportionately’ left wing? Youth have always been more left leaning, and despite the overwhelmingly right leaning traditional media in the U.K, most would describe themselves somewhere around the centre. Most believe in left wing ideals like public healthcare, police and fire service, a social safety net such as a benefit system, state pension etc. " I would describe myself as a traditional conservative voter. But I agree with just about every left wing idea regarding public services. Spending on the NHS, infrastructure maintenance, schools, social care, the armed forces should all be doubled. What we disagree on is where the money comes from. Lefties believe in a magic money tree it seems. I don’t | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, are universities ‘disproportionately’ left wing? Youth have always been more left leaning, and despite the overwhelmingly right leaning traditional media in the U.K, most would describe themselves somewhere around the centre. Most believe in left wing ideals like public healthcare, police and fire service, a social safety net such as a benefit system, state pension etc. I would describe myself as a traditional conservative voter. But I agree with just about every left wing idea regarding public services. Spending on the NHS, infrastructure maintenance, schools, social care, the armed forces should all be doubled. What we disagree on is where the money comes from. Lefties believe in a magic money tree it seems. I don’t " This lefty doesn’t believe in a magic money tree. Unless you’d describe progressive taxation as such. Many seem to want all the perks of our semi-socialist society with none of the cost. An equally out-of-touch notion, I’m sure you’d agree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think we have to remember that most journalists are lefties. Most journalists are lefties? How do you arrive at that conclusion, especially as most media companies are owned and controlled by billionaires? Firstly, the fact that you seem to link success with right of centre politics is very interesting. True of course. But not all media moguls are right wing. The Maxwells are an obvious example. Secondly, the university indoctrination. Whist you don’t have to have gone to uni to be a journalist, it would be all but impossible to work for a big media company if you haven’t. And 3 years of brainwashing is hard to resist. Thirdly, while there are a few right leaning newspapers, nearly all tv and radio news is far left. Why do you think going to uni involves brainwashing? And what are you being brainwashed with? All tv and radio news is far left? The BBC director general was a Tory, I imagine he must have been shocked to find out he'd been helping in putting out communist news all this time! Boggles my mind what kind of country people think they live in Well it’s not brainwashing for all, quite a few are already far left activists The director general is not a journalist, they are the director general. The clue is in the job title. But probably the most far left of all media so I guess either he didn’t have much say, or was too scared to speak up. So everyone at university is a far left activist or (on top of getting an education) is being brainwashed by far left professors? What are students being brainwashed with..? These far left graduates, of which there are millions, then go out into the world with their far left agendas, infiltrating news outlets with their now far left ideology. And with all that, the UK has had Tory governments and a (at best) centre left government who are going to last one cycle? Not everyone, but a large proportion. It’s never “everyone”. There aren’t millions of graduates. In the UK roughly 800,000 graduate each year. So that’s like less than 2% of the population so hardly a significant voting block, (in answer to your last point) Right so that's 800,000 graduates getting brainwashed every year. Does the brainwashing only last 1 year after they graduate, or are they brainwashed for life? If it only lasts a year, then what's the point? If it lasts longer, where are all these brainwashed far-left voters? Again, what are they being brainwashed with? Im not a graduate, I started work the day after I finished school. But based on my observations I’d say it depends on exposure. Some seem to cling on to it for life, people such as civil servants, teachers, human rights lawyers, union officials, football commentators etc. Some seem to come to their senses quite quickly. I can’t comment on why they do it, i assume it’s the same reason that people who don’t work in a uni push their beliefs and ideology onto others. Why do you try to persuade people to your point of view? You've said you're not a graduate, so what is your experience of a university? Who is doing the brainwashing and when? Is it all faculties, or just certain subjects? Based on your observations..? You mean you've looked at some people who've been to uni and if they're left of centre then that's evidence that universities are brainwashing students? (I don't know whether you mean rogue professors or whole institutes) I have worked at around 20 different universities. That’s my experience. What’s yours " I graduated from uni and have friends that stayed on to do doctorate and teach. I didn't see any brainwashing going on. Does it happen demon headmaster style where you look into the eyes of the professor and whilst you think you're learning about the Reformation, they're actually brainwashing students into believing communism is the only answer to any of today's problems? If you've worked around 20 unis, could you give an example of the brainwashing? It sounds quite series that 800,000 a year are being brainwashed! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, are universities ‘disproportionately’ left wing? Youth have always been more left leaning, and despite the overwhelmingly right leaning traditional media in the U.K, most would describe themselves somewhere around the centre. Most believe in left wing ideals like public healthcare, police and fire service, a social safety net such as a benefit system, state pension etc. I would describe myself as a traditional conservative voter. But I agree with just about every left wing idea regarding public services. Spending on the NHS, infrastructure maintenance, schools, social care, the armed forces should all be doubled. What we disagree on is where the money comes from. Lefties believe in a magic money tree it seems. I don’t This lefty doesn’t believe in a magic money tree. Unless you’d describe progressive taxation as such. Many seem to want all the perks of our semi-socialist society with none of the cost. An equally out-of-touch notion, I’m sure you’d agree. " There is never enough money for a socialist society to function unless there is a magic money tree. Because socialist never stop coming up with new stuff to spend money on. You could probably double all taxes and there still wouldn’t be enough money. And this is the crux of the difference. 1. I accept that there isn’t enough money for everything we would like to do in an ideal world. 2. People will always disagree on how tax revenue is shared out. 3. Many socialist don’t accept that they can’t just tax the rich to finance their spending wet dream. They seem to think of rich people as thieves who have s t o l e n money from others and they are the Robin Hood who is gonna take it back. Yet never look to themselves and others in similar circumstances to raise tax from. Most rich people pay into the system but don’t use the public services they pay for. They pay for private medical care, private schools and private adult care. 4. Socialist politicians are very good at selling their spending wet dream to dreamers (the young and gullible) and convince them someone else will pay for it. 5. Wanting to keep your own hard earned money is not selfish or mean. Yet those who contribute next to nothing are very good at throwing those slurs around. 6. The state is always very inefficient at managing spending. Yet most people are very good at handling their own money, in fact that have to be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think we have to remember that most journalists are lefties. Most journalists are lefties? How do you arrive at that conclusion, especially as most media companies are owned and controlled by billionaires? Firstly, the fact that you seem to link success with right of centre politics is very interesting. True of course. But not all media moguls are right wing. The Maxwells are an obvious example. Secondly, the university indoctrination. Whist you don’t have to have gone to uni to be a journalist, it would be all but impossible to work for a big media company if you haven’t. And 3 years of brainwashing is hard to resist. Thirdly, while there are a few right leaning newspapers, nearly all tv and radio news is far left. Why do you think going to uni involves brainwashing? And what are you being brainwashed with? All tv and radio news is far left? The BBC director general was a Tory, I imagine he must have been shocked to find out he'd been helping in putting out communist news all this time! Boggles my mind what kind of country people think they live in Well it’s not brainwashing for all, quite a few are already far left activists The director general is not a journalist, they are the director general. The clue is in the job title. But probably the most far left of all media so I guess either he didn’t have much say, or was too scared to speak up. So everyone at university is a far left activist or (on top of getting an education) is being brainwashed by far left professors? What are students being brainwashed with..? These far left graduates, of which there are millions, then go out into the world with their far left agendas, infiltrating news outlets with their now far left ideology. And with all that, the UK has had Tory governments and a (at best) centre left government who are going to last one cycle? Not everyone, but a large proportion. It’s never “everyone”. There aren’t millions of graduates. In the UK roughly 800,000 graduate each year. So that’s like less than 2% of the population so hardly a significant voting block, (in answer to your last point) Right so that's 800,000 graduates getting brainwashed every year. Does the brainwashing only last 1 year after they graduate, or are they brainwashed for life? If it only lasts a year, then what's the point? If it lasts longer, where are all these brainwashed far-left voters? Again, what are they being brainwashed with? Im not a graduate, I started work the day after I finished school. But based on my observations I’d say it depends on exposure. Some seem to cling on to it for life, people such as civil servants, teachers, human rights lawyers, union officials, football commentators etc. Some seem to come to their senses quite quickly. I can’t comment on why they do it, i assume it’s the same reason that people who don’t work in a uni push their beliefs and ideology onto others. Why do you try to persuade people to your point of view? You've said you're not a graduate, so what is your experience of a university? Who is doing the brainwashing and when? Is it all faculties, or just certain subjects? Based on your observations..? You mean you've looked at some people who've been to uni and if they're left of centre then that's evidence that universities are brainwashing students? (I don't know whether you mean rogue professors or whole institutes) I have worked at around 20 different universities. That’s my experience. What’s yours I graduated from uni and have friends that stayed on to do doctorate and teach. I didn't see any brainwashing going on. Does it happen demon headmaster style where you look into the eyes of the professor and whilst you think you're learning about the Reformation, they're actually brainwashing students into believing communism is the only answer to any of today's problems? If you've worked around 20 unis, could you give an example of the brainwashing? It sounds quite series that 800,000 a year are being brainwashed!" You’ve been watching too much television If you want to look at the extremes of brainwashing, look at the religions and cults that have indoctrinated most of the population of the planet. A good one to study would be Jim Jones of the People’s Church. Without staring into anyone’s eyes he convinced hundreds of people that the right thing to do was to kill themselves and their children. Another would be the Chinese interrogation techniques during the Korean War. With zero torture, zero food deprivation, zero harm of any kind they successfully got American and British prisoners of war to willingly commit treason and hand over secret information. And they didn’t look into their eyes. The only downside from a military point of view was it took time and the intelligence gained could be out of date by the time they got it. Clever stuff tho. So convincing people that there’s loads of mean rich people that you can get money from to help the underprivileged shouldn’t be a tough sell by comparison. Paul McKenna is a much more harmless example of convincing people to do stuff. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You've given examples of cults and religion. I'm well aware of the concept of brainwashing. What I'm asking is examples of brainwashing at universities, and to what end? Are medical students being brainwashed in between all that studying and working in hospitals? Or is it history students with their 5 hours a week contact time with various tutors?" Let me try a slightly different approach as you seem to be struggling a little. If a bully hits another kid in school, is it ok for the kid to hit the bully back? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You've given examples of cults and religion. I'm well aware of the concept of brainwashing. What I'm asking is examples of brainwashing at universities, and to what end? Are medical students being brainwashed in between all that studying and working in hospitals? Or is it history students with their 5 hours a week contact time with various tutors? Let me try a slightly different approach as you seem to be struggling a little. If a bully hits another kid in school, is it ok for the kid to hit the bully back? " Yes. Not following what the relevance there is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Less than 5 hours voting left. Result expected Friday morning but can forsee a few recounts if very close vote. Still think Greens will shade it but sounds like any of 3 could win.🤷" Not long ago I thought the Greens were going to smash this one with labour voters looking to register their anger but not willing to turn to reform. However recent polling seems to suggest that although labours percentage is basically halved it still means they are very close to the lead. A narrow Greens victory now I think. This is purely on the polling so plenty of margin for error | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You've given examples of cults and religion. I'm well aware of the concept of brainwashing. What I'm asking is examples of brainwashing at universities, and to what end? Are medical students being brainwashed in between all that studying and working in hospitals? Or is it history students with their 5 hours a week contact time with various tutors? Let me try a slightly different approach as you seem to be struggling a little. If a bully hits another kid in school, is it ok for the kid to hit the bully back? Yes. Not following what the relevance there is." I agree with you. Yet a lot of people would disagree. I’m gonna guess that your opinion was formed by various inputs, stories you heard when at school, your own experiences at school, your parents input, other parents input, input from your kids, other kids (I’ve made some assumptions, you may not even have kids). Now if you do have a kid and your kid got hit by a bully, hit them back and got in trouble at school, you’re gonna have major issues with the school because your kid is a primary input, not the school. Regardless of what’s actually right or wrong. A professor at uni, the students union, peers…. All carried on from college and high school. That’s a lot of voices all pushing the same ideological viewpoint. Staff promoted based on their politics and participation in the right type of political events. This is widely known. You’re acting like either you’ve never heard this before, probably because you’d like to think every socialist arrived at that viewpoint without any external input but that’s simply not the case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Less than 5 hours voting left. Result expected Friday morning but can forsee a few recounts if very close vote. Still think Greens will shade it but sounds like any of 3 could win.🤷 Not long ago I thought the Greens were going to smash this one with labour voters looking to register their anger but not willing to turn to reform. However recent polling seems to suggest that although labours percentage is basically halved it still means they are very close to the lead. A narrow Greens victory now I think. This is purely on the polling so plenty of margin for error " Yes, an unusually interesting by election! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Time to sell up and get out of here." And go where? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe not write Reform off just yet Farage said earlier, reform will gather votes over the closing hours, ‘because our voters work’ " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe not write Reform off just yet Farage said earlier, reform will gather votes over the closing hours, ‘because our voters work’ " Top trolling 🤣🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You've given examples of cults and religion. I'm well aware of the concept of brainwashing. What I'm asking is examples of brainwashing at universities, and to what end? Are medical students being brainwashed in between all that studying and working in hospitals? Or is it history students with their 5 hours a week contact time with various tutors? Let me try a slightly different approach as you seem to be struggling a little. If a bully hits another kid in school, is it ok for the kid to hit the bully back? Yes. Not following what the relevance there is. I agree with you. Yet a lot of people would disagree. I’m gonna guess that your opinion was formed by various inputs, stories you heard when at school, your own experiences at school, your parents input, other parents input, input from your kids, other kids (I’ve made some assumptions, you may not even have kids). Now if you do have a kid and your kid got hit by a bully, hit them back and got in trouble at school, you’re gonna have major issues with the school because your kid is a primary input, not the school. Regardless of what’s actually right or wrong. A professor at uni, the students union, peers…. All carried on from college and high school. That’s a lot of voices all pushing the same ideological viewpoint. Staff promoted based on their politics and participation in the right type of political events. This is widely known. You’re acting like either you’ve never heard this before, probably because you’d like to think every socialist arrived at that viewpoint without any external input but that’s simply not the case. " No, I think for the vast majority of people left or right have the viewpoint they do based on various factors, where they grew up, parents, friends, hobbies, work etc. I think going to university is part of that for various reasons. Where I disagree is that this involves brainwashing people. Seems a very American way of looking where universities are more like campuses. In the UK most unis are in city centres and so whilst you spend some time in uni, chances are you're working in the town/city, going to pubs/clubs etc. You're not being indoctrinated. I mean if you're doing medicine, what does it matter what political views one of your lecturers has? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 4. Socialist politicians are very good at selling their spending wet dream to dreamers (the young and gullible) and convince them someone else will pay for it. " I wanted to pick up on this quote about ‘the young and gullible’ Are others not gullible? What about those who believed in Brexit? (Typically older generations) Or those who believe that asylum seekers are somehow illegal? (Again, more common in older folk) Are they not gullible too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is widely known. You’re acting like either you’ve never heard this before, probably because you’d like to think every socialist arrived at that viewpoint without any external input but that’s simply not the case. " Nobody arrives at any viewpoint without external input though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 4. Socialist politicians are very good at selling their spending wet dream to dreamers (the young and gullible) and convince them someone else will pay for it. I wanted to pick up on this quote about ‘the young and gullible’ Are others not gullible? What about those who believed in Brexit? (Typically older generations) Or those who believe that asylum seekers are somehow illegal? (Again, more common in older folk) Are they not gullible too? " What's wrong in believing in Brexit? And when people say asylum seekers are illegal, they are talking about people entering the country without prior permission. The refugee conventions adopted by UK making it legal doesn't matter to them. You are arguing based on semantics, something which no one gives a damn about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's wrong in believing in Brexit? And when people say asylum seekers are illegal, they are talking about people entering the country without prior permission. The refugee conventions adopted by UK making it legal doesn't matter to them. You are arguing based on semantics, something which no one gives a damn about." I’m not arguing semantics re: asylum seekers - it’s literally fact. If somebody believes anyone telling them otherwise, they are gullible, by definition. Much like someone in 2026 still believing in Brexit, against all evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's wrong in believing in Brexit? And when people say asylum seekers are illegal, they are talking about people entering the country without prior permission. The refugee conventions adopted by UK making it legal doesn't matter to them. You are arguing based on semantics, something which no one gives a damn about. I’m not arguing semantics re: asylum seekers - it’s literally fact. If somebody believes anyone telling them otherwise, they are gullible, by definition. Much like someone in 2026 still believing in Brexit, against all evidence. " This kind of arrogance is the outcome of brainwashing. "Against all evidence"? What evidence? Different people value different things. What you think is good is not the same as what others think is good. As for asylum seekers. People don't want random unvetted strangers entering the country. Them using the term "illegal" may not sound right to you. But the real debate is about whether these people should be allowed into the country or not. You making it a semantic argument is a waste of time for everyone involved because you are making an argument that they don't care about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As for asylum seekers. People don't want random unvetted strangers entering the country. Them using the term "illegal" may not sound right to you. But the real debate is about whether these people should be allowed into the country or not. You making it a semantic argument is a waste of time for everyone involved because you are making an argument that they don't care about." It is literally you who is trying to swing the debate according to what *you* believe. I said that those who believe people telling them that asylum seekers are illegal are gullible. That is a statement of fact - you are trying to interpret it otherwise by saying ‘the real debate is…’ No, this was a sub-discussion about someone claiming that a group of society are gullible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 4. Socialist politicians are very good at selling their spending wet dream to dreamers (the young and gullible) and convince them someone else will pay for it. I wanted to pick up on this quote about ‘the young and gullible’ Are others not gullible? What about those who believed in Brexit? (Typically older generations) Or those who believe that asylum seekers are somehow illegal? (Again, more common in older folk) Are they not gullible too? " You misunderstand that someone can both enter a country illegally (without papers or permission) and legally claim asylum. Claiming asylum does not make their entry legal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 4. Socialist politicians are very good at selling their spending wet dream to dreamers (the young and gullible) and convince them someone else will pay for it. I wanted to pick up on this quote about ‘the young and gullible’ Are others not gullible? What about those who believed in Brexit? (Typically older generations) Or those who believe that asylum seekers are somehow illegal? (Again, more common in older folk) Are they not gullible too? You misunderstand that someone can both enter a country illegally (without papers or permission) and legally claim asylum. Claiming asylum does not make their entry legal." As soon as they claim asylum, they are legal - correct? So any asylum seeker (ie one who is in the system, not one who has been refused and awaiting removal) is here legally? Correct? As you were. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 4. Socialist politicians are very good at selling their spending wet dream to dreamers (the young and gullible) and convince them someone else will pay for it. I wanted to pick up on this quote about ‘the young and gullible’ Are others not gullible? What about those who believed in Brexit? (Typically older generations) Or those who believe that asylum seekers are somehow illegal? (Again, more common in older folk) Are they not gullible too? You misunderstand that someone can both enter a country illegally (without papers or permission) and legally claim asylum. Claiming asylum does not make their entry legal. As soon as they claim asylum, they are legal - correct? So any asylum seeker (ie one who is in the system, not one who has been refused and awaiting removal) is here legally? Correct? As you were. " Again, you are confused about two different things but I fear you are not open to understanding the difference so won't press the point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 4. Socialist politicians are very good at selling their spending wet dream to dreamers (the young and gullible) and convince them someone else will pay for it. I wanted to pick up on this quote about ‘the young and gullible’ Are others not gullible? What about those who believed in Brexit? (Typically older generations) Or those who believe that asylum seekers are somehow illegal? (Again, more common in older folk) Are they not gullible too? You misunderstand that someone can both enter a country illegally (without papers or permission) and legally claim asylum. Claiming asylum does not make their entry legal. As soon as they claim asylum, they are legal - correct? So any asylum seeker (ie one who is in the system, not one who has been refused and awaiting removal) is here legally? Correct? As you were. Again, you are confused about two different things but I fear you are not open to understanding the difference so won't press the point." No, I understand completely. I’m just not sure your point is relevant. That’s why we have an asylum processing system. So those arriving with or without papers can be dealt with correctly. There’s no other way (except for a few routes for specific nations) to claim asylum in the U.K without entering ‘illegally’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As for asylum seekers. People don't want random unvetted strangers entering the country. Them using the term "illegal" may not sound right to you. But the real debate is about whether these people should be allowed into the country or not. You making it a semantic argument is a waste of time for everyone involved because you are making an argument that they don't care about. It is literally you who is trying to swing the debate according to what *you* believe. I said that those who believe people telling them that asylum seekers are illegal are gullible. That is a statement of fact - you are trying to interpret it otherwise by saying ‘the real debate is…’ No, this was a sub-discussion about someone claiming that a group of society are gullible. " Because I am arguing from their side. I understand them better than you do. What you are making is a strawman argument. People are pissed off about the social and economic issues with letting unvetted strangers into the country. You are making it a legal argument. If we change the law to make them all illegal even if they apply for asylum, will you then stop making these arguments? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As for asylum seekers. People don't want random unvetted strangers entering the country. Them using the term "illegal" may not sound right to you. But the real debate is about whether these people should be allowed into the country or not. You making it a semantic argument is a waste of time for everyone involved because you are making an argument that they don't care about. It is literally you who is trying to swing the debate according to what *you* believe. I said that those who believe people telling them that asylum seekers are illegal are gullible. That is a statement of fact - you are trying to interpret it otherwise by saying ‘the real debate is…’ No, this was a sub-discussion about someone claiming that a group of society are gullible. Because I am arguing from their side. I understand them better than you do. What you are making is a strawman argument. People are pissed off about the social and economic issues with letting unvetted strangers into the country. You are making it a legal argument. If we change the law to make them all illegal even if they apply for asylum, will you then stop making these arguments?" I was doing no such thing, I was discussing gullibility. You, once again are trying to make an argument all on your own. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As for asylum seekers. People don't want random unvetted strangers entering the country. Them using the term "illegal" may not sound right to you. But the real debate is about whether these people should be allowed into the country or not. You making it a semantic argument is a waste of time for everyone involved because you are making an argument that they don't care about. It is literally you who is trying to swing the debate according to what *you* believe. I said that those who believe people telling them that asylum seekers are illegal are gullible. That is a statement of fact - you are trying to interpret it otherwise by saying ‘the real debate is…’ No, this was a sub-discussion about someone claiming that a group of society are gullible. Because I am arguing from their side. I understand them better than you do. What you are making is a strawman argument. People are pissed off about the social and economic issues with letting unvetted strangers into the country. You are making it a legal argument. If we change the law to make them all illegal even if they apply for asylum, will you then stop making these arguments? I was doing no such thing, I was discussing gullibility. You, once again are trying to make an argument all on your own. " Your evidence for "gullibility" is a strawman argument you were making in your own mind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As for asylum seekers. People don't want random unvetted strangers entering the country. Them using the term "illegal" may not sound right to you. But the real debate is about whether these people should be allowed into the country or not. You making it a semantic argument is a waste of time for everyone involved because you are making an argument that they don't care about. It is literally you who is trying to swing the debate according to what *you* believe. I said that those who believe people telling them that asylum seekers are illegal are gullible. That is a statement of fact - you are trying to interpret it otherwise by saying ‘the real debate is…’ No, this was a sub-discussion about someone claiming that a group of society are gullible. Because I am arguing from their side. I understand them better than you do. What you are making is a strawman argument. People are pissed off about the social and economic issues with letting unvetted strangers into the country. You are making it a legal argument. If we change the law to make them all illegal even if they apply for asylum, will you then stop making these arguments? I was doing no such thing, I was discussing gullibility. You, once again are trying to make an argument all on your own. Your evidence for "gullibility" is a strawman argument you were making in your own mind. " *sigh* If someone says that a sunflower isn’t yellow, and you believe them, you’d be gullible, right? Why? Because you’re falling for an easily disprovable lie. A quick search of google will prove them wrong, but you can’t even do that, because you’re so intent on believing their information. Same thing. (Of course you’ll claim it’s not because like a pigeon playing chess etc etc) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As for asylum seekers. People don't want random unvetted strangers entering the country. Them using the term "illegal" may not sound right to you. But the real debate is about whether these people should be allowed into the country or not. You making it a semantic argument is a waste of time for everyone involved because you are making an argument that they don't care about. It is literally you who is trying to swing the debate according to what *you* believe. I said that those who believe people telling them that asylum seekers are illegal are gullible. That is a statement of fact - you are trying to interpret it otherwise by saying ‘the real debate is…’ No, this was a sub-discussion about someone claiming that a group of society are gullible. Because I am arguing from their side. I understand them better than you do. What you are making is a strawman argument. People are pissed off about the social and economic issues with letting unvetted strangers into the country. You are making it a legal argument. If we change the law to make them all illegal even if they apply for asylum, will you then stop making these arguments? I was doing no such thing, I was discussing gullibility. You, once again are trying to make an argument all on your own. Your evidence for "gullibility" is a strawman argument you were making in your own mind. *sigh* If someone says that a sunflower isn’t yellow, and you believe them, you’d be gullible, right? Why? Because you’re falling for an easily disprovable lie. A quick search of google will prove them wrong, but you can’t even do that, because you’re so intent on believing their information. Same thing. (Of course you’ll claim it’s not because like a pigeon playing chess etc etc) " No one believed sunflower isn't yellow. The whole thing is an imaginary argument you cooked up in your mind to tell a story yourself that you are more intelligent than the rest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one believed sunflower isn't yellow. The whole thing is an imaginary argument you cooked up in your mind to tell a story yourself that you are more intelligent than the rest. " And no one who spends more than 4 seconds on Google believes that asylum seekers are illegal either. And yet people still make the claim. Did you know gullible has at least two definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one believed sunflower isn't yellow. The whole thing is an imaginary argument you cooked up in your mind to tell a story yourself that you are more intelligent than the rest. And no one who spends more than 4 seconds on Google believes that asylum seekers are illegal either. And yet people still make the claim. Did you know gullible has at least two definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary? " Pretty much every thread about the issue focuses on economic and social impact of letting unvetted strangers into the country. Every once in awhile, we see someone like you show up and making random argument on semantics. No one gives a fuck about that. As I wrote above, it's a fake story you tell yourself to feel intellectually superior. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one believed sunflower isn't yellow. The whole thing is an imaginary argument you cooked up in your mind to tell a story yourself that you are more intelligent than the rest. And no one who spends more than 4 seconds on Google believes that asylum seekers are illegal either. And yet people still make the claim. Did you know gullible has at least two definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary? Pretty much every thread about the issue focuses on economic and social impact of letting unvetted strangers into the country. Every once in awhile, we see someone like you show up and making random argument on semantics. No one gives a fuck about that. As I wrote above, it's a fake story you tell yourself to feel intellectually superior. " Who knows more about what I said and why? You, a bloke on the internet, or me, the person who typed the words? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one believed sunflower isn't yellow. The whole thing is an imaginary argument you cooked up in your mind to tell a story yourself that you are more intelligent than the rest. And no one who spends more than 4 seconds on Google believes that asylum seekers are illegal either. And yet people still make the claim. Did you know gullible has at least two definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary? Pretty much every thread about the issue focuses on economic and social impact of letting unvetted strangers into the country. Every once in awhile, we see someone like you show up and making random argument on semantics. No one gives a fuck about that. As I wrote above, it's a fake story you tell yourself to feel intellectually superior. Who knows more about what I said and why? You, a bloke on the internet, or me, the person who typed the words? " Who knows more about the argument of a side? A person belonging to that side or a person who doesn't? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one believed sunflower isn't yellow. The whole thing is an imaginary argument you cooked up in your mind to tell a story yourself that you are more intelligent than the rest. And no one who spends more than 4 seconds on Google believes that asylum seekers are illegal either. And yet people still make the claim. Did you know gullible has at least two definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary? Pretty much every thread about the issue focuses on economic and social impact of letting unvetted strangers into the country. Every once in awhile, we see someone like you show up and making random argument on semantics. No one gives a fuck about that. As I wrote above, it's a fake story you tell yourself to feel intellectually superior. Who knows more about what I said and why? You, a bloke on the internet, or me, the person who typed the words? Who knows more about the argument of a side? A person belonging to that side or a person who doesn't?" How about you answer my question? That’s how debate works. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one believed sunflower isn't yellow. The whole thing is an imaginary argument you cooked up in your mind to tell a story yourself that you are more intelligent than the rest. And no one who spends more than 4 seconds on Google believes that asylum seekers are illegal either. And yet people still make the claim. Did you know gullible has at least two definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary? Pretty much every thread about the issue focuses on economic and social impact of letting unvetted strangers into the country. Every once in awhile, we see someone like you show up and making random argument on semantics. No one gives a fuck about that. As I wrote above, it's a fake story you tell yourself to feel intellectually superior. Who knows more about what I said and why? You, a bloke on the internet, or me, the person who typed the words? Who knows more about the argument of a side? A person belonging to that side or a person who doesn't? How about you answer my question? That’s how debate works. " I did answer your question. You are making a claim about the argument the other side are making. I belong to the other side. I understand what argument the side makes more than you. Here are a couple of recent threads on the topic. You don't even see the word illegal used here. People are discussing the economics of the asylum system. If you could actually try to understand what the other side is telling you, instead of making strawman arguments about semantics, it would be less of a time waste for the people involved . https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1730966 https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1755816#last | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one believed sunflower isn't yellow. The whole thing is an imaginary argument you cooked up in your mind to tell a story yourself that you are more intelligent than the rest. And no one who spends more than 4 seconds on Google believes that asylum seekers are illegal either. And yet people still make the claim. Did you know gullible has at least two definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary? Pretty much every thread about the issue focuses on economic and social impact of letting unvetted strangers into the country. Every once in awhile, we see someone like you show up and making random argument on semantics. No one gives a fuck about that. As I wrote above, it's a fake story you tell yourself to feel intellectually superior. Who knows more about what I said and why? You, a bloke on the internet, or me, the person who typed the words? Who knows more about the argument of a side? A person belonging to that side or a person who doesn't? How about you answer my question? That’s how debate works. I did answer your question. You are making a claim about the argument the other side are making. I belong to the other side. I understand what argument the side makes more than you. Here are a couple of recent threads on the topic. You don't even see the word illegal used here. People are discussing the economics of the asylum system. If you could actually try to understand what the other side is telling you, instead of making strawman arguments about semantics, it would be less of a time waste for the people involved . https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1730966 https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1755816#last" No, I asked you how you think you understand what I said better than me, who said it. You’ve taken this off on a tangent of your own making, like someone arguing in an empty room. Like I said, a pigeon on a chessboard. Have a good night, try not to argue non-sequiturs all night. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one believed sunflower isn't yellow. The whole thing is an imaginary argument you cooked up in your mind to tell a story yourself that you are more intelligent than the rest. And no one who spends more than 4 seconds on Google believes that asylum seekers are illegal either. And yet people still make the claim. Did you know gullible has at least two definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary? Pretty much every thread about the issue focuses on economic and social impact of letting unvetted strangers into the country. Every once in awhile, we see someone like you show up and making random argument on semantics. No one gives a fuck about that. As I wrote above, it's a fake story you tell yourself to feel intellectually superior. Who knows more about what I said and why? You, a bloke on the internet, or me, the person who typed the words? Who knows more about the argument of a side? A person belonging to that side or a person who doesn't? How about you answer my question? That’s how debate works. I did answer your question. You are making a claim about the argument the other side are making. I belong to the other side. I understand what argument the side makes more than you. Here are a couple of recent threads on the topic. You don't even see the word illegal used here. People are discussing the economics of the asylum system. If you could actually try to understand what the other side is telling you, instead of making strawman arguments about semantics, it would be less of a time waste for the people involved . https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1730966 https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1755816#last No, I asked you how you think you understand what I said better than me, who said it. You’ve taken this off on a tangent of your own making, like someone arguing in an empty room. Like I said, a pigeon on a chessboard. Have a good night, try not to argue non-sequiturs all night. " Lol. You said that people arguing on the other side are "gullible" because they don't understand the legality of the asylum seekers. I showed you examples that legality wasn't the argument of the people on the other side. It's the economic and social cost. You, on the other hand have been parroting the same thing again and again. Anyone reading this thread can easily see who is the brainwashed and gullible one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one believed sunflower isn't yellow. The whole thing is an imaginary argument you cooked up in your mind to tell a story yourself that you are more intelligent than the rest. And no one who spends more than 4 seconds on Google believes that asylum seekers are illegal either. And yet people still make the claim. Did you know gullible has at least two definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary? Pretty much every thread about the issue focuses on economic and social impact of letting unvetted strangers into the country. Every once in awhile, we see someone like you show up and making random argument on semantics. No one gives a fuck about that. As I wrote above, it's a fake story you tell yourself to feel intellectually superior. Who knows more about what I said and why? You, a bloke on the internet, or me, the person who typed the words? Who knows more about the argument of a side? A person belonging to that side or a person who doesn't? How about you answer my question? That’s how debate works. I did answer your question. You are making a claim about the argument the other side are making. I belong to the other side. I understand what argument the side makes more than you. Here are a couple of recent threads on the topic. You don't even see the word illegal used here. People are discussing the economics of the asylum system. If you could actually try to understand what the other side is telling you, instead of making strawman arguments about semantics, it would be less of a time waste for the people involved . https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1730966 https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1755816#last No, I asked you how you think you understand what I said better than me, who said it. You’ve taken this off on a tangent of your own making, like someone arguing in an empty room. Like I said, a pigeon on a chessboard. Have a good night, try not to argue non-sequiturs all night. Lol. You said that people arguing on the other side are "gullible" because they don't understand the legality of the asylum seekers. I showed you examples that legality wasn't the argument of the people on the other side. It's the economic and social cost." And yet a quick browse of FB, X etc will reveal plenty of people whinging about ‘illegal’ asylum seekers. If they argued eloquently about the economic and social cost the I’d not be calling them gullible. Glad we got there in the end. There was no need for your side-quest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one believed sunflower isn't yellow. The whole thing is an imaginary argument you cooked up in your mind to tell a story yourself that you are more intelligent than the rest. And no one who spends more than 4 seconds on Google believes that asylum seekers are illegal either. And yet people still make the claim. Did you know gullible has at least two definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary? Pretty much every thread about the issue focuses on economic and social impact of letting unvetted strangers into the country. Every once in awhile, we see someone like you show up and making random argument on semantics. No one gives a fuck about that. As I wrote above, it's a fake story you tell yourself to feel intellectually superior. Who knows more about what I said and why? You, a bloke on the internet, or me, the person who typed the words? Who knows more about the argument of a side? A person belonging to that side or a person who doesn't? How about you answer my question? That’s how debate works. I did answer your question. You are making a claim about the argument the other side are making. I belong to the other side. I understand what argument the side makes more than you. Here are a couple of recent threads on the topic. You don't even see the word illegal used here. People are discussing the economics of the asylum system. If you could actually try to understand what the other side is telling you, instead of making strawman arguments about semantics, it would be less of a time waste for the people involved . https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1730966 https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1755816#last No, I asked you how you think you understand what I said better than me, who said it. You’ve taken this off on a tangent of your own making, like someone arguing in an empty room. Like I said, a pigeon on a chessboard. Have a good night, try not to argue non-sequiturs all night. Lol. You said that people arguing on the other side are "gullible" because they don't understand the legality of the asylum seekers. I showed you examples that legality wasn't the argument of the people on the other side. It's the economic and social cost. And yet a quick browse of FB, X etc will reveal plenty of people whinging about ‘illegal’ asylum seekers. If they argued eloquently about the economic and social cost the I’d not be calling them gullible. Glad we got there in the end. There was no need for your side-quest. " If you actually try to read the argument instead of doing a "quick browse", you will see that they were talking about the economic and social issues. I know I shouldn't have expected you to do something outlandish as actually listening to the other side of the argument when you have already made up your mind that you are intelligent and the rest are stupid | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one believed sunflower isn't yellow. The whole thing is an imaginary argument you cooked up in your mind to tell a story yourself that you are more intelligent than the rest. And no one who spends more than 4 seconds on Google believes that asylum seekers are illegal either. And yet people still make the claim. Did you know gullible has at least two definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary? Pretty much every thread about the issue focuses on economic and social impact of letting unvetted strangers into the country. Every once in awhile, we see someone like you show up and making random argument on semantics. No one gives a fuck about that. As I wrote above, it's a fake story you tell yourself to feel intellectually superior. Who knows more about what I said and why? You, a bloke on the internet, or me, the person who typed the words? Who knows more about the argument of a side? A person belonging to that side or a person who doesn't? How about you answer my question? That’s how debate works. I did answer your question. You are making a claim about the argument the other side are making. I belong to the other side. I understand what argument the side makes more than you. Here are a couple of recent threads on the topic. You don't even see the word illegal used here. People are discussing the economics of the asylum system. If you could actually try to understand what the other side is telling you, instead of making strawman arguments about semantics, it would be less of a time waste for the people involved . https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1730966 https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1755816#last No, I asked you how you think you understand what I said better than me, who said it. You’ve taken this off on a tangent of your own making, like someone arguing in an empty room. Like I said, a pigeon on a chessboard. Have a good night, try not to argue non-sequiturs all night. Lol. You said that people arguing on the other side are "gullible" because they don't understand the legality of the asylum seekers. I showed you examples that legality wasn't the argument of the people on the other side. It's the economic and social cost. And yet a quick browse of FB, X etc will reveal plenty of people whinging about ‘illegal’ asylum seekers. If they argued eloquently about the economic and social cost the I’d not be calling them gullible. Glad we got there in the end. There was no need for your side-quest. If you actually try to read the argument instead of doing a "quick browse", you will see that they were talking about the economic and social issues. I know I shouldn't have expected you to do something outlandish as actually listening to the other side of the argument when you have already made up your mind that you are intelligent and the rest are stupid "You’re aware of the arguments I’ve been reading on other platforms as well as what I mean when I type? I really am out of my league, you’re apparently super-human. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You’re aware of the arguments I’ve been reading on other platforms as well as what I mean when I type? I really am out of my league, you’re apparently super-human. " I can also find some random tankies in corners of the internet who still believe USSR was really a success and it's the western propaganda that paints it in a bad light. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You’re aware of the arguments I’ve been reading on other platforms as well as what I mean when I type? I really am out of my league, you’re apparently super-human. I can also find some random tankies in corners of the internet who still believe USSR was really a success and it's the western propaganda that paints it in a bad light. " And you’d regard them as gullible, correct? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You’re aware of the arguments I’ve been reading on other platforms as well as what I mean when I type? I really am out of my league, you’re apparently super-human. I can also find some random tankies in corners of the internet who still believe USSR was really a success and it's the western propaganda that paints it in a bad light. And you’d regard them as gullible, correct? " The specific one or two yes. Other left wingers, no. I am definitely not going to make generalised views on people's intelligence like you made about Brexit supporters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The specific one or two yes. Other left wingers, no." Nobody is taking about other left wingers - we’re discussing the ‘tankies’ you described. So why did you leap off the deep end assuming I was talking about anyone who has concerns about asylum, when in actual fact I was discussing *specifically* those who denied abject reality (that is that asylum seekers are not illegal)? Do you see where you went wrong, yet? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The specific one or two yes. Other left wingers, no. Nobody is taking about other left wingers - we’re discussing the ‘tankies’ you described. So why did you leap off the deep end assuming I was talking about anyone who has concerns about asylum, when in actual fact I was discussing *specifically* those who denied abject reality (that is that asylum seekers are not illegal)? Do you see where you went wrong, yet? " You seem really keen to recruit people to Reform. Are you on their payroll, or do you just love Nigel? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hope beats hate " Or sectarianism beat community?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Family voting what on earth are You talking about?? Are you on something?" Good morning Sit. 😀 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Family voting what on earth are You talking about?? Are you on something?" Family voting is where Family members collude at the voting station on who to vote for, rather than voting independently. It was made illegal in practice in 2023 by the Ballot Secrecy Act. Democracy Volunteers are international observers accredited by the Electoral Commision. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Family voting what on earth are You talking about?? Are you on something?" It's another way of saying Islamist voters and empathisers tactical voting. They're not happy with Labour, punch on the nose, don't like Farage, immigration/Palestine, Liberals too gay rights, against religious principle. It's a hazard of the voting system now the Islamic population is ever increasing in many communities and World events a portrayed in the media. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Family voting what on earth are You talking about?? Are you on something? It's another way of saying Islamist voters and empathisers tactical voting. They're not happy with Labour, punch on the nose, don't like Farage, immigration/Palestine, Liberals too gay rights, against religious principle. It's a hazard of the voting system now the Islamic population is ever increasing in many communities and World events a portrayed in the media." Is family voting exclusive to Islamic families, then? All 3 ‘top’ parties have said they’ll welcome an investigation into this extrapolated report, which is good to see. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This was a historic democratic result, that will send waves across the left and right of the country. The message to the left is that Greens are viable and Labour is unpopular. The message to the Right is that the Conservatives are irrelevant and Reform is on the rise. Other messages that will resonate and be used by various political parties are that Islamic block voting is real, Xenophobia gets votes and there's no such thing as a safe seat anymore. On the one hand, this is a refresh of democracy in the UK and politicians need to try harder and listen to the voters. On the other hand, it demonstrates a clear polarisation within politics to both the left and right. Fun times!" Certainly interesting times ! Looks like the two party system might be back in a different form. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Family voting what on earth are You talking about?? Are you on something? It's another way of saying Islamist voters and empathisers tactical voting. They're not happy with Labour, punch on the nose, don't like Farage, immigration/Palestine, Liberals too gay rights, against religious principle. It's a hazard of the voting system now the Islamic population is ever increasing in many communities and World events a portrayed in the media. Is family voting exclusive to Islamic families, then? All 3 ‘top’ parties have said they’ll welcome an investigation into this extrapolated report, which is good to see. " There is plenty of evidence that yes, it is more of an issue in Muslim areas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Family voting what on earth are You talking about?? Are you on something? It's another way of saying Islamist voters and empathisers tactical voting. They're not happy with Labour, punch on the nose, don't like Farage, immigration/Palestine, Liberals too gay rights, against religious principle. It's a hazard of the voting system now the Islamic population is ever increasing in many communities and World events a portrayed in the media. Is family voting exclusive to Islamic families, then? All 3 ‘top’ parties have said they’ll welcome an investigation into this extrapolated report, which is good to see. There is plenty of evidence that yes, it is more of an issue in Muslim areas." Is there evidence that there’s a fraudulent voting issue in those areas, or is there evidence that fraudulent voting is more regularly claimed in those areas? Because they’re not the same thing. If there’s an issue, it must be sorted out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wonder what Andy Burnham is thinking...missed his chance or dodged a bullet? " Both? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wonder what Andy Burnham is thinking...missed his chance or dodged a bullet? Both?" Given the Green numbers I don't think he'd have won, so I'd say the latter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Manchester Council putting out statement saying no voting issues were reported to them..but Democracy Volunteers say they did report them...." They were apparently reported after polling closed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wonder what Andy Burnham is thinking...missed his chance or dodged a bullet? Both? Given the Green numbers I don't think he'd have won, so I'd say the latter." He might claim (and believe) that he would have retained votes... After all, they were (a) Left wing votes at the end of the day, and (b) a clear stick in the eye to SKS. He'd argue that only he could prevent this exodus. In fact, this loss could be a gift to him as well. Or it could go the other way and he might be blamed as the toxic element that drove people in Manchester away, as he was willing to abandon them. Different camps will probably claim each of these positions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This was a historic democratic result, that will send waves across the left and right of the country. The message to the left is that Greens are viable and Labour is unpopular. The message to the Right is that the Conservatives are irrelevant and Reform is on the rise. Other messages that will resonate and be used by various political parties are that Islamic block voting is real, Xenophobia gets votes and there's no such thing as a safe seat anymore. On the one hand, this is a refresh of democracy in the UK and politicians need to try harder and listen to the voters. On the other hand, it demonstrates a clear polarisation within politics to both the left and right. Fun times!" Looks very similar to the situation in France. Parties on the extreme ends of both sides gaining so much support. Not sure if FPTP is designed to handle this situation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This was a historic democratic result, that will send waves across the left and right of the country. The message to the left is that Greens are viable and Labour is unpopular. The message to the Right is that the Conservatives are irrelevant and Reform is on the rise. Other messages that will resonate and be used by various political parties are that Islamic block voting is real, Xenophobia gets votes and there's no such thing as a safe seat anymore. On the one hand, this is a refresh of democracy in the UK and politicians need to try harder and listen to the voters. On the other hand, it demonstrates a clear polarisation within politics to both the left and right. Fun times! Looks very similar to the situation in France. Parties on the extreme ends of both sides gaining so much support. Not sure if FPTP is designed to handle this situation." Fortunate that both greens and LD’s support PR, so in the event of a hung parliament that may well be a chip on the table | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ll wait till part 3 of the thread to leave my long thoughts…. But the quick response… brilliant for the greens… they are going to be a big challenge to labour in a lot of seats labour whilst moving right to fight reform, in a lot of seats now are going to need to be aware of their left flank Reform got all the conservative votes… also if we are going to cheer when you win, crying foul when you lose isn’t really adult! " You missed the part where all 3 main parties have supported an investigation into suspicious voting. We don't want Minnesota rules here please! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As soon as they claim asylum, they are legal - correct? So any asylum seeker (ie one who is in the system, not one who has been refused and awaiting removal) is here legally? Correct?" Not correct. Claiming asylum gives the seeker immunity from prosecution for immigration offences. That doesn't mean that the offences didn't happen, and it doesn't mean that they have a clean criminal record. They are still guilty of illegal entry, it's just that the 1951 Convention says we can't hold that against them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
