RugbyRebels

morepork wrote:Just to be clear, he really is that fucking stupid. Intent doesn't even come into it.

So much so you'd excuse him from a mens rea culpability?

No. Simply stating (the obvious) that he is not engineering any social narrative as part of a cunning long term plan. When words come into Mr. Head, they go straight out of Mr. Mouth.

Surely you admired him saying 'this is a dog, a type of dog, some type of dog, we give dog medal'?

morepork wrote:No. Simply stating (the obvious) that he is not engineering any social narrative as part of a cunning long term plan. When words come into Mr. Head, they go straight out of Mr. Mouth.

Oh come on. You're falling for that? Would an absolute cretin, as you describe, allow himself or his team to post this? I don't think so.

What the fuck is that?

morepork wrote:What the fuck is that?

The official photo to go with his latest "not an emergency, honest" medical "check-up"

We shouldn't mock Trump going in for phase 1 of his medical, who knows how much more prep is required in the larger gentleman when it comes to getting the proctol exam done

What a sad act. Why not go full projecting retard and photoshop a horse's cock poking out from the hem of the shorts?

morepork wrote:What a sad act. Why not go full projecting retard and photoshop a horse's cock poking out from the hem of the shorts?

Don’t give him ideas.

if you've not seen the video of Trump singing the law for a centennial coin commemorating women’s suffrage to be issued by the Treasury it's worth a gander. Having noted it's to celebrate the centenary Trump queries why this hasn't been done before displaying a true understanding of a simple and easy grasp passage of time. Actually it's worse than Trump not knowing what a century is because he also has an answer as to why it's happening now, and his answer isn't because a bi-partisan group of female politicians brought the act forward, Trump instead posits he's the reason it's happening now as he gets things done during his Presidency, whether he think's he's culpable for not advancing to the double centenary isn't yet known.

Whether you support him or not he's a truly fucking weird man.

I think he is literally too stupid to insult.

Cheer up. He may torpedo Boris's remaining political capital by coming out in support of him this month when he is over there "doing deals". He will say Boris offered to sell him Scotland or some such shit.

Should be a hoot.

morepork wrote:I think he is literally too stupid to insult.

Cheer up. He may torpedo Boris's remaining political capital by coming out in support of him this month when he is over there "doing deals". He will say Boris offered to sell him Scotland or some such shit.

Should be a hoot.

That is my major hope in this election. Boris has already come out publically said, "Don't say anything," and I'd imagine has been even more fervent in private, but there is absolutely zero chance that Donald will believe that him chipping in will be anything but wonderful.

Puja

Puja wrote:

morepork wrote:I think he is literally too stupid to insult.

Cheer up. He may torpedo Boris's remaining political capital by coming out in support of him this month when he is over there "doing deals". He will say Boris offered to sell him Scotland or some such shit.

Should be a hoot.

That is my major hope in this election. Boris has already come out publically said, "Don't say anything," and I'd imagine has been even more fervent in private, but there is absolutely zero chance that Donald will believe that him chipping in will be anything but wonderful.

Puja

I hope to see him do to BoJo what he did to Chris Christie.

Won’t make a difference. BoJo is up against Corbyn, he may be a clown and broadly incompetent but he isn’t Corbyn.

Sandydragon wrote:Won’t make a difference. BoJo is up against Corbyn, he may be a clown and broadly incompetent but he isn’t Corbyn.

Boris is a thundering fuckhead. Corbyn must be pretty bad indeed if that pig fucker is preferable.

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Won’t make a difference. BoJo is up against Corbyn, he may be a clown and broadly incompetent but he isn’t Corbyn.

Boris is a thundering fuckhead. Corbyn must be pretty bad indeed if that pig fucker is preferable.

Corbyn hasn't helped himself by saying things like he would remain neutral in Brexit negotiations if elected. What a daft thing to say.

However, much of the shit directed at Corbyn has been grossly unfair, or just untrue. Fake news if you like. He isn't an anti-semite, he has however been critical of Israeli policies, and does have a very sympathetic ear towards Palestinians, as well as other people who lack a voice.

BoJo has corporations, rich people and powerful lobbies sucking up to him. Corbyn wants to increase tax for high earners, corps and has enough of a backbone to stand up for people suffering around the world...usually thanks to existing UK (and others) policies.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

I'm not on the ground there, but is Corbyn being assassinated by the spectre of high tax coming to impose socialism and threatens the magic of trickle down economics? Maybe he fucked a goat?

morepork wrote:I'm not on the ground there, but is Corbyn being assassinated by the spectre of high tax coming to impose socialism and threatens the magic of trickle down economics? Maybe he fucked a goat?

A lot of vested interests (the very wealthy) are terrified that he might change the status quo in ways that would make them worse off, hence most of the newspapers have vilified him either from day one or from the moment he - surprisingly to them - appeared to actually have some support in the country. The BBC have generally been faintly negative about him (not so much during the election because they're under the spotlight) - eg Laura Kuenssberg, the political editor, was found to have breached the broadcaster's impartiality and accuracy guidelines regarding him in 2017.

Sounds like the abject terror struck into the hearts of rich folk over here by the Communist Sorceress Elizabeth Warren. Quite pathetic really.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

morepork wrote:I'm not on the ground there, but is Corbyn being assassinated by the spectre of high tax coming to impose socialism and threatens the magic of trickle down economics? Maybe he fucked a goat?

A lot of vested interests (the very wealthy) are terrified that he might change the status quo in ways that would make them worse off, hence most of the newspapers have vilified him either from day one or from the moment he - surprisingly to them - appeared to actually have some support in the country. The BBC have generally been faintly negative about him (not so much during the election because they're under the spotlight) - eg Laura Kuenssberg, the political editor, was found to have breached the broadcaster's impartiality and accuracy guidelines regarding him in 2017.

I've not really heard any talk around Labour being perceived as 'worse' on tax than normal, bar the uber wealthy, and I doubt Labour ever get or expect to get much of that vote. The problems Corbyn has aren't a million miles away from this other Labour leaders have faced, but for a variety of reasons, and many of those are down to Corbyn even if some are media driven, Labour are unable to reach out and advance a progressive message.

Any number of other potential Labour leaders would be set to win with a huge majority, and they'd have to deal with the same media, if Corbyn and his supporters continue to pretend there's a media problem not a Corbyn/Momentum problem they're just going to have the same problems in future.

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

morepork wrote:I'm not on the ground there, but is Corbyn being assassinated by the spectre of high tax coming to impose socialism and threatens the magic of trickle down economics? Maybe he fucked a goat?

A lot of vested interests (the very wealthy) are terrified that he might change the status quo in ways that would make them worse off, hence most of the newspapers have vilified him either from day one or from the moment he - surprisingly to them - appeared to actually have some support in the country. The BBC have generally been faintly negative about him (not so much during the election because they're under the spotlight) - eg Laura Kuenssberg, the political editor, was found to have breached the broadcaster's impartiality and accuracy guidelines regarding him in 2017.

I've not really heard any talk around Labour being perceived as 'worse' on tax than normal, bar the uber wealthy, and I doubt Labour ever get or expect to get much of that vote. The problems Corbyn has aren't a million miles away from this other Labour leaders have faced, but for a variety of reasons, and many of those are down to Corbyn even if some are media driven, Labour are unable to reach out and advance a progressive message.

Any number of other potential Labour leaders would be set to win with a huge majority, and they'd have to deal with the same media, if Corbyn and his supporters continue to pretend there's a media problem not a Corbyn/Momentum problem they're just going to have the same problems in future.

I'm of the opinion that any leader from the left of the Labour party, such as Corbyn, would have had exactly the same reception from the newspapers (if perceived as capable of pulling in votes, which many doubted of Corbyn at first). Imagine Diane Abbott, for example. But of course, I cannot prove this; Corbyn is the only such leader seen for decades.

Corbyn is way short of being a very effective leader. But I'm not convinced that (for example) either of his stand-ins from the recent debates have been any more effective. And I don't believe Momentum is really in the public eye enough to be an electoral issue.

If, alternatively, by "other potential" leader you include more centrist, new Labour types, I strongly suspect they would be ahead in the polls now. But they would not be bringing such a radical agenda for change - they'd be indistinguishable from the Lib Dems (and would thus get a lot of their vote). Under normal circumstances I'd prefer the radical agenda, but given the crucial moment we are in deciding the path this country will take in the future, it's a shame Corbyn hasn't been able to present a more moderate image. (After all, Blair had his own pet lefty deputy PM to help keep some of the socialists on side).

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: A lot of vested interests (the very wealthy) are terrified that he might change the status quo in ways that would make them worse off, hence most of the newspapers have vilified him either from day one or from the moment he - surprisingly to them - appeared to actually have some support in the country. The BBC have generally been faintly negative about him (not so much during the election because they're under the spotlight) - eg Laura Kuenssberg, the political editor, was found to have breached the broadcaster's impartiality and accuracy guidelines regarding him in 2017.

I've not really heard any talk around Labour being perceived as 'worse' on tax than normal, bar the uber wealthy, and I doubt Labour ever get or expect to get much of that vote. The problems Corbyn has aren't a million miles away from this other Labour leaders have faced, but for a variety of reasons, and many of those are down to Corbyn even if some are media driven, Labour are unable to reach out and advance a progressive message.

Any number of other potential Labour leaders would be set to win with a huge majority, and they'd have to deal with the same media, if Corbyn and his supporters continue to pretend there's a media problem not a Corbyn/Momentum problem they're just going to have the same problems in future.

I'm of the opinion that any leader from the left of the Labour party, such as Corbyn, would have had exactly the same reception from the newspapers (if perceived as capable of pulling in votes, which many doubted of Corbyn at first). Imagine Diane Abbott, for example. But of course, I cannot prove this; Corbyn is the only such leader seen for decades.

Corbyn is way short of being a very effective leader. But I'm not convinced that (for example) either of his stand-ins from the recent debates have been any more effective. And I don't believe Momentum is really in the public eye enough to be an electoral issue.

If, alternatively, by "other potential" leader you include more centrist, new Labour types, I strongly suspect they would be ahead in the polls now. But they would not be bringing such a radical agenda for change - they'd be indistinguishable from the Lib Dems (and would thus get a lot of their vote). Under normal circumstances I'd prefer the radical agenda, but given the crucial moment we are in deciding the path this country will take in the future, it's a shame Corbyn hasn't been able to present a more moderate image. (After all, Blair had his own pet lefty deputy PM to help keep some of the socialists on side).

I do mean Labour putting up someone from their centre or even right. Someone in essence who reflects more where the country actually is politically and could get some more votes.

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:
I've not really heard any talk around Labour being perceived as 'worse' on tax than normal, bar the uber wealthy, and I doubt Labour ever get or expect to get much of that vote. The problems Corbyn has aren't a million miles away from this other Labour leaders have faced, but for a variety of reasons, and many of those are down to Corbyn even if some are media driven, Labour are unable to reach out and advance a progressive message.

Any number of other potential Labour leaders would be set to win with a huge majority, and they'd have to deal with the same media, if Corbyn and his supporters continue to pretend there's a media problem not a Corbyn/Momentum problem they're just going to have the same problems in future.

I'm of the opinion that any leader from the left of the Labour party, such as Corbyn, would have had exactly the same reception from the newspapers (if perceived as capable of pulling in votes, which many doubted of Corbyn at first). Imagine Diane Abbott, for example. But of course, I cannot prove this; Corbyn is the only such leader seen for decades.

Corbyn is way short of being a very effective leader. But I'm not convinced that (for example) either of his stand-ins from the recent debates have been any more effective. And I don't believe Momentum is really in the public eye enough to be an electoral issue.

If, alternatively, by "other potential" leader you include more centrist, new Labour types, I strongly suspect they would be ahead in the polls now. But they would not be bringing such a radical agenda for change - they'd be indistinguishable from the Lib Dems (and would thus get a lot of their vote). Under normal circumstances I'd prefer the radical agenda, but given the crucial moment we are in deciding the path this country will take in the future, it's a shame Corbyn hasn't been able to present a more moderate image. (After all, Blair had his own pet lefty deputy PM to help keep some of the socialists on side).

I do mean Labour putting up someone from their centre or even right. Someone in essence who reflects more where the country actually is politically and could get some more votes.

Like a tory?

paddy no 11 wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I'm of the opinion that any leader from the left of the Labour party, such as Corbyn, would have had exactly the same reception from the newspapers (if perceived as capable of pulling in votes, which many doubted of Corbyn at first). Imagine Diane Abbott, for example. But of course, I cannot prove this; Corbyn is the only such leader seen for decades.

Corbyn is way short of being a very effective leader. But I'm not convinced that (for example) either of his stand-ins from the recent debates have been any more effective. And I don't believe Momentum is really in the public eye enough to be an electoral issue.

If, alternatively, by "other potential" leader you include more centrist, new Labour types, I strongly suspect they would be ahead in the polls now. But they would not be bringing such a radical agenda for change - they'd be indistinguishable from the Lib Dems (and would thus get a lot of their vote). Under normal circumstances I'd prefer the radical agenda, but given the crucial moment we are in deciding the path this country will take in the future, it's a shame Corbyn hasn't been able to present a more moderate image. (After all, Blair had his own pet lefty deputy PM to help keep some of the socialists on side).

I do mean Labour putting up someone from their centre or even right. Someone in essence who reflects more where the country actually is politically and could get some more votes.

Like a tory?

I doubt you'd find many Tories between Corbyn and the right of the Labour Party, oddly they're probably already in the Tory party, the clue's in the name

Well I thought it was funny.

I'm curious who you might mean though, being on the right but currently part of the labour party? I don't know which other yellow tories were left behind when Umuna etc. jumped ship.