Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Would Joe Biden beat Donald Trump? See this interesting analys

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited April 2 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Would Joe Biden beat Donald Trump? See this interesting analysis

I rather like this approach to looking at the White House race because this is a state battle as we saw in 2016 when Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but Trump made it because he picked up several key states by very small margins.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263
    I'd hope so
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263
    E pluribus unum?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,645
    Biden might beat Trump in the general election but he first has to get past Sanders and Warren in the Democratic Primaries which will be no easy task for him
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 1,468
    HYUFD said:

    Biden might beat Trump in the general election but he first has to get past Sanders and Warren in the Democratic Primaries which will be no easy task for him

    And Clinton - she wants to run again by all accounts.

    What the Democrats need is a new Obama - someone fresh, not a Washington insider.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,383
    Fewer people's jobs are likely to be destroyed by artificial intelligence and robots than has been suggested by a much-cited study, an OECD report says.

    An influential 2013 forecast by Oxford University said that about 47% of jobs in the US in 2010 and 35% in the UK were at "high risk" of being automated over the following 20 years.

    But the OECD puts the US figure at about 10% and the UK's at 12%.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43618620
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626

    HYUFD said:

    Biden might beat Trump in the general election but he first has to get past Sanders and Warren in the Democratic Primaries which will be no easy task for him

    And Clinton - she wants to run again by all accounts.

    Oh gods, some people just cannot get a clue can they?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263

    Fewer people's jobs are likely to be destroyed by artificial intelligence and robots than has been suggested by a much-cited study, an OECD report says.

    An influential 2013 forecast by Oxford University said that about 47% of jobs in the US in 2010 and 35% in the UK were at "high risk" of being automated over the following 20 years.

    But the OECD puts the US figure at about 10% and the UK's at 12%.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43618620

    Oxford University talking shite?

    Colour me stunned.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,383

    Fewer people's jobs are likely to be destroyed by artificial intelligence and robots than has been suggested by a much-cited study, an OECD report says.

    An influential 2013 forecast by Oxford University said that about 47% of jobs in the US in 2010 and 35% in the UK were at "high risk" of being automated over the following 20 years.

    But the OECD puts the US figure at about 10% and the UK's at 12%.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43618620

    Oxford University talking shite?

    Colour me stunned.
    Surprised we didn't see any of them signing that Jezza letter.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263
    edited April 2
    Crikey (though incumbent Speakers seldom lose, I think only one has lost in the last 156 years.)

    @kylegriffin1: Randy Bryce, the Democrat challenging Paul Ryan, announced his campaign raised $2.1 million in the first quarter of 2018, with nearly $2.3 million cash on hand. (via @playbookplus)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,645
    edited April 2

    HYUFD said:

    Biden might beat Trump in the general election but he first has to get past Sanders and Warren in the Democratic Primaries which will be no easy task for him

    And Clinton - she wants to run again by all accounts.

    What the Democrats need is a new Obama - someone fresh, not a Washington insider.
    I highly doubt Hillary will run again and even if she did I doubt the Democrats would nominate her again.

    The latest Democratic primary poll has it Biden 27%, Sanders 16%, Winfrey 13%, Clinton 13%, Warren 10%, Booker 4%, Harris 4%, Cuomo 2%, Gillibrand 1%

    http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final_HHP_18Jan2018_RegisteredVoters_Topline_Memo.pdf

    The latest general election poll has Biden leading Trump 56% to 39%, Sanders leading Trump 55% to 39% and Warren leading Trump 51% to 40%

    https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/PPP_Release_National_32718.pdf
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 664
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Biden might beat Trump in the general election but he first has to get past Sanders and Warren in the Democratic Primaries which will be no easy task for him

    And Clinton - she wants to run again by all accounts.

    What the Democrats need is a new Obama - someone fresh, not a Washington insider.
    I highly doubt Hillary will run again and even if she did I doubt the Democrats would nominate her again.

    The latest Democratic primary poll has it Biden 27%, Sanders 16%, Winfrey 13%, Clinton 13%, Warren 10%, Booker 4%, Harris 4%, Cuomo 2%, Gillibrand 1%

    http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final_HHP_18Jan2018_RegisteredVoters_Topline_Memo.pdf

    The latest general election poll has Biden leading Trump 59% to 36%, Sanders leading Trump 55% to 39% and Warren leading Trump 51% to 40%

    https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/PPP_Release_National_32718.pdf
    Admittedly they are very strong numbers for Joe Biden - I’m surprised. Thanks for posting.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,238

    Fewer people's jobs are likely to be destroyed by artificial intelligence and robots than has been suggested by a much-cited study, an OECD report says.

    An influential 2013 forecast by Oxford University said that about 47% of jobs in the US in 2010 and 35% in the UK were at "high risk" of being automated over the following 20 years.

    But the OECD puts the US figure at about 10% and the UK's at 12%.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43618620

    Oxford University talking shite?

    Colour me stunned.
    It is a good thing that predicting the future is so easy, otherwise nobody would get grants to conduct "research" of this sort.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,645
    edited April 2
    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Biden might beat Trump in the general election but he first has to get past Sanders and Warren in the Democratic Primaries which will be no easy task for him

    And Clinton - she wants to run again by all accounts.

    What the Democrats need is a new Obama - someone fresh, not a Washington insider.
    I highly doubt Hillary will run again and even if she did I doubt the Democrats would nominate her again.

    The latest Democratic primary poll has it Biden 27%, Sanders 16%, Winfrey 13%, Clinton 13%, Warren 10%, Booker 4%, Harris 4%, Cuomo 2%, Gillibrand 1%

    http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final_HHP_18Jan2018_RegisteredVoters_Topline_Memo.pdf

    The latest general election poll has Biden leading Trump 59% to 36%, Sanders leading Trump 55% to 39% and Warren leading Trump 51% to 40%

    https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/PPP_Release_National_32718.pdf
    Admittedly they are very strong numbers for Joe Biden - I’m surprised. Thanks for posting.
    I think he regrets not running in 2016, had he done so he might well have been President now
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626
    Today I had what is only my third WH2020 bet at 280/1 on Betfair. I’m planing a separate post.

    Ooh, what a tease.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,145

    Crikey (though incumbent Speakers seldom lose, I think only one has lost in the last 156 years.)

    @kylegriffin1: Randy Bryce, the Democrat challenging Paul Ryan, announced his campaign raised $2.1 million in the first quarter of 2018, with nearly $2.3 million cash on hand. (via @playbookplus)

    Surely he is not really standing against Ryan - unless the mid-terms produce a very close result - but really for the Democratic nomination, should they win.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 1,468
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Biden might beat Trump in the general election but he first has to get past Sanders and Warren in the Democratic Primaries which will be no easy task for him

    And Clinton - she wants to run again by all accounts.

    What the Democrats need is a new Obama - someone fresh, not a Washington insider.
    I highly doubt Hillary will run again and even if she did I doubt the Democrats would nominate her again.

    The latest Democratic primary poll has it Biden 27%, Sanders 16%, Winfrey 13%, Clinton 13%, Warren 10%, Booker 4%, Harris 4%, Cuomo 2%, Gillibrand 1%

    http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final_HHP_18Jan2018_RegisteredVoters_Topline_Memo.pdf

    The latest general election poll has Biden leading Trump 56% to 39%, Sanders leading Trump 55% to 39% and Warren leading Trump 51% to 40%

    https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/PPP_Release_National_32718.pdf
    The problem is that she may try - and the Democratic party is still has many Clintonistas. Also there is the money issue. In the last presidential campaign, it has come out that the the Democratic Party was essentially taken over by Clinton to an extraordinary extent - long before the actual nomination. See https://www.politico.eu/article/inside-hillary-clintons-secret-takeover-of-the-dnc/

    Unwinding this without her co-operation would be extremely problematic. Hopefully she will be content to be a king maker.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,066
    edited April 2
    What a bizarre video. The narrator starts by saying how important it is to use polling data and ends up just saying "Biden will sweep the Rust Belt" and doesn't give any data to back up. It's just his view.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 1,468
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Fewer people's jobs are likely to be destroyed by artificial intelligence and robots than has been suggested by a much-cited study, an OECD report says.

    An influential 2013 forecast by Oxford University said that about 47% of jobs in the US in 2010 and 35% in the UK were at "high risk" of being automated over the following 20 years.

    But the OECD puts the US figure at about 10% and the UK's at 12%.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43618620

    Oxford University talking shite?

    Colour me stunned.
    It is a good thing that predicting the future is so easy, otherwise nobody would get grants to conduct "research" of this sort.
    I am considering using AI to build a think tank - the output will be essentially AManFromMars from the Register - specialising in future predictions.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,631
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Fewer people's jobs are likely to be destroyed by artificial intelligence and robots than has been suggested by a much-cited study, an OECD report says.

    An influential 2013 forecast by Oxford University said that about 47% of jobs in the US in 2010 and 35% in the UK were at "high risk" of being automated over the following 20 years.

    But the OECD puts the US figure at about 10% and the UK's at 12%.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43618620

    Oxford University talking shite?

    Colour me stunned.
    It is a good thing that predicting the future is so easy, otherwise nobody would get grants to conduct "research" of this sort.
    grants being your money and mine
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,357
    HYUFD said:

    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Biden might beat Trump in the general election but he first has to get past Sanders and Warren in the Democratic Primaries which will be no easy task for him

    And Clinton - she wants to run again by all accounts.

    What the Democrats need is a new Obama - someone fresh, not a Washington insider.
    I highly doubt Hillary will run again and even if she did I doubt the Democrats would nominate her again.

    The latest Democratic primary poll has it Biden 27%, Sanders 16%, Winfrey 13%, Clinton 13%, Warren 10%, Booker 4%, Harris 4%, Cuomo 2%, Gillibrand 1%

    http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final_HHP_18Jan2018_RegisteredVoters_Topline_Memo.pdf

    The latest general election poll has Biden leading Trump 59% to 36%, Sanders leading Trump 55% to 39% and Warren leading Trump 51% to 40%

    https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/PPP_Release_National_32718.pdf
    Admittedly they are very strong numbers for Joe Biden - I’m surprised. Thanks for posting.
    I think he regrets not running in 2016, had he done so he might well have been President now
    Very much so. I understand his stated reasons for not running at the time - although how much he was knobbled by the Clinton campaign we’ll probably never know - but he’s probably left it too late now. He’d be 78 on Inauguration Day 2021.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,542
    I am sure someone in trawling through their past comments to see what other 'helpful' contributions they have made to public discourse...

    Not exactly a nationally representative sample of academics - most of them seem to work at Goldsmiths...
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,145

    I am sure someone in trawling through their past comments to see what other 'helpful' contributions they have made to public discourse...

    Not exactly a nationally representative sample of academics - most of them seem to work at Goldsmiths...
    Well I picked one at random, and he's previously accused the media of an anti-Corbyn bias writing for the Independent...
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,631
    Jeremy does look embarrassed though
  • I am sure someone in trawling through their past comments to see what other 'helpful' contributions they have made to public discourse...

    Not exactly a nationally representative sample of academics - most of them seem to work at Goldsmiths...
    One of them is an 'Assistant Professor of Media' at Swansea, and is busy calling people who disagree with him names on Twitter.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,238

    I am sure someone in trawling through their past comments to see what other 'helpful' contributions they have made to public discourse...

    Not exactly a nationally representative sample of academics - most of them seem to work at Goldsmiths...
    Or badge-engineered polys. No Oxford or Exeter, thankfully: in fact not even Cambridge.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,125

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Biden might beat Trump in the general election but he first has to get past Sanders and Warren in the Democratic Primaries which will be no easy task for him

    And Clinton - she wants to run again by all accounts.

    What the Democrats need is a new Obama - someone fresh, not a Washington insider.
    I highly doubt Hillary will run again and even if she did I doubt the Democrats would nominate her again.

    The latest Democratic primary poll has it Biden 27%, Sanders 16%, Winfrey 13%, Clinton 13%, Warren 10%, Booker 4%, Harris 4%, Cuomo 2%, Gillibrand 1%

    http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final_HHP_18Jan2018_RegisteredVoters_Topline_Memo.pdf

    The latest general election poll has Biden leading Trump 56% to 39%, Sanders leading Trump 55% to 39% and Warren leading Trump 51% to 40%

    https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/PPP_Release_National_32718.pdf
    The problem is that she may try - and the Democratic party is still has many Clintonistas. Also there is the money issue. In the last presidential campaign, it has come out that the the Democratic Party was essentially taken over by Clinton to an extraordinary extent - long before the actual nomination. See https://www.politico.eu/article/inside-hillary-clintons-secret-takeover-of-the-dnc/

    Unwinding this without her co-operation would be extremely problematic. Hopefully she will be content to be a king maker.
    I was thankful not to have a vote in the previous US presidential election, but one of the things that would have put me off voting for Mrs Clinton is that, if elected, she would have won a fantastic place in the history books. I'd prefer that place to go to someone more ..... um ..... worthy?

    But that place in the history books may still be a huge motivator for her.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,645
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Anazina said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Biden might beat Trump in the general election but he first has to get past Sanders and Warren in the Democratic Primaries which will be no easy task for him

    And Clinton - she wants to run again by all accounts.

    What the Democrats need is a new Obama - someone fresh, not a Washington insider.
    I highly doubt Hillary will run again and even if she did I doubt the Democrats would nominate her again.

    The latest Democratic primary poll has it Biden 27%, Sanders 16%, Winfrey 13%, Clinton 13%, Warren 10%, Booker 4%, Harris 4%, Cuomo 2%, Gillibrand 1%

    http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final_HHP_18Jan2018_RegisteredVoters_Topline_Memo.pdf

    The latest general election poll has Biden leading Trump 59% to 36%, Sanders leading Trump 55% to 39% and Warren leading Trump 51% to 40%

    https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/PPP_Release_National_32718.pdf
    Admittedly they are very strong numbers for Joe Biden - I’m surprised. Thanks for posting.
    I think he regrets not running in 2016, had he done so he might well have been President now
    Very much so. I understand his stated reasons for not running at the time - although how much he was knobbled by the Clinton campaign we’ll probably never know - but he’s probably left it too late now. He’d be 78 on Inauguration Day 2021.
    Trump will be 74 on Inaugration Day 2021
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,622

    Jeremy does look embarrassed though
    Dan Hodges makes a living by being a journalist still.

    Apparently
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263

    Jeremy does look embarrassed though
    Dan Hodges makes a living by being a journalist still.

    Apparently
    I agree with Momentum.

    Momentum has warned its supporters that accusations of antisemitism in Labour are not rightwing smears or conspiracy, saying unconscious anti-Jewish bias is “more widespread in the Labour party than many of us had understood even a few months ago”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/02/labour-antisemitism-more-widespread-than-thought-momentum-says
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,645
    edited April 2

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Biden might beat Trump in the general election but he first has to get past Sanders and Warren in the Democratic Primaries which will be no easy task for him

    And Clinton - she wants to run again by all accounts.

    What the Democrats need is a new Obama - someone fresh, not a Washington insider.
    I highly doubt Hillary will run again and even if she did I doubt the Democrats would nominate her again.

    The latest Democratic primary poll has it Biden 27%, Sanders 16%, Winfrey 13%, Clinton 13%, Warren 10%, Booker 4%, Harris 4%, Cuomo 2%, Gillibrand 1%

    http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final_HHP_18Jan2018_RegisteredVoters_Topline_Memo.pdf

    The latest general election poll has Biden leading Trump 56% to 39%, Sanders leading Trump 55% to 39% and Warren leading Trump 51% to 40%

    https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/PPP_Release_National_32718.pdf
    The problem is that she may try - and the Democratic party is still has many Clintonistas. Also there is the money issue. In the last presidential campaign, it has come out that the the Democratic Party was essentially taken over by Clinton to an extraordinary extent - long before the actual nomination. See https://www.politico.eu/article/inside-hillary-clintons-secret-takeover-of-the-dnc/

    Unwinding this without her co-operation would be extremely problematic. Hopefully she will be content to be a king maker.
    Hillary was overwhelming favourite for the nomination in 2016 and barely scraped past Bernie Sanders with 55% to his 43% in the primaries.

    Had Sanders won Iowa where he lost by less than 1% he would have almost certainly been nominee given he won NH too. After she then lost the general election to Trump too despite the DNC telling primary activists she was the 'electable' candidate there is near zero chance she will be nominee in 2020, not that she is likely to run anyway
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,622

    I am sure someone in trawling through their past comments to see what other 'helpful' contributions they have made to public discourse...

    Not exactly a nationally representative sample of academics - most of them seem to work at Goldsmiths...
    Has Rupert dispatched any of his journalists to Order Order yet.

    Woudn't so much need to trawl to find 2000 examples of racism would they?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 1,468
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Biden might beat Trump in the general election but he first has to get past Sanders and Warren in the Democratic Primaries which will be no easy task for him

    And Clinton - she wants to run again by all accounts.

    What the Democrats need is a new Obama - someone fresh, not a Washington insider.
    I highly doubt Hillary will run again and even if she did I doubt the Democrats would nominate her again.

    The latest Democratic primary poll has it Biden 27%, Sanders 16%, Winfrey 13%, Clinton 13%, Warren 10%, Booker 4%, Harris 4%, Cuomo 2%, Gillibrand 1%

    http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final_HHP_18Jan2018_RegisteredVoters_Topline_Memo.pdf

    The latest general election poll has Biden leading Trump 56% to 39%, Sanders leading Trump 55% to 39% and Warren leading Trump 51% to 40%

    https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/PPP_Release_National_32718.pdf
    The problem is that she may try - and the Democratic party is still has many Clintonistas. Also there is the money issue. In the last presidential campaign, it has come out that the the Democratic Party was essentially taken over by Clinton to an extraordinary extent - long before the actual nomination. See https://www.politico.eu/article/inside-hillary-clintons-secret-takeover-of-the-dnc/

    Unwinding this without her co-operation would be extremely problematic. Hopefully she will be content to be a king maker.
    Hillary was overwhelming favourite for the nomination in 2016 and barely scraped past Bernie Sanders with 55% to his 43% in the primaries.

    Had Sanders won Iowa where he lost by less than 1% he would have almost certainly been nominee given he won NH too. After she then lost the general election to Trump too despite the DNC telling primary activists she was the 'electable' candidate there is near zero chance she will be nominee in 2020, not that she is likely to run anyway
    I hope that she is sensible - her actions in the party turned off many, many core, long term Democrats.

    To be frank, she is just not very good at elective politics.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,383

    I am sure someone in trawling through their past comments to see what other 'helpful' contributions they have made to public discourse...

    Not exactly a nationally representative sample of academics - most of them seem to work at Goldsmiths...
    They are dead impartial that lot. The first one I google in his bio on his personal website states,

    "appeared on national television as a spokesperson for Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party."

    "a member of the founding national committee of Momentum (the controversial organisation established to support Corbyn's leadership of Labour)"
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 6,766
    It’s Iain Paisley Jr so I’m not surprised at all. Anyone who took him seriously as an opponent of racism just because he turned up at that demo last week is naive.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,488

    Jeremy does look embarrassed though
    Dan Hodges makes a living by being a journalist still.

    Apparently
    I agree with Momentum.

    Momentum has warned its supporters that accusations of antisemitism in Labour are not rightwing smears or conspiracy, saying unconscious anti-Jewish bias is “more widespread in the Labour party than many of us had understood even a few months ago”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/02/labour-antisemitism-more-widespread-than-thought-momentum-says
    Eagles, you know and I know that for some Labour supporters nothing anybody says is going to get them to admit there is a problem.

    Or worse, they just don't care.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,357
    edited April 2

    I am sure someone in trawling through their past comments to see what other 'helpful' contributions they have made to public discourse...

    Not exactly a nationally representative sample of academics - most of them seem to work at Goldsmiths...
    They are dead impartial that lot. The first one I google in his bio on his personal website states,

    "appeared on national television as a spokesperson for Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party."

    "a member of the founding national committee of Momentum (the controversial organisation established to support Corbyn's leadership of Labour)"
    So even as Momentum themselves are admitting there’s a problem that urgently needs addressing within the party, the Corbyn fan club are writing letters to the Guardian saying its all a media conspiracy to undermine the Great Leader.

    All these “academics” have achieved is to keep this story top of the news for yet another day.

    *Gets more popcorn*.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,622

    I am sure someone in trawling through their past comments to see what other 'helpful' contributions they have made to public discourse...

    Not exactly a nationally representative sample of academics - most of them seem to work at Goldsmiths...
    They are dead impartial that lot. The first one I google in his bio on his personal website states,

    "appeared on national television as a spokesperson for Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party."

    "a member of the founding national committee of Momentum (the controversial organisation established to support Corbyn's leadership of Labour)"
    Which of us are unbiased? Not DH. Not me not you for certain.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,273

    It’s Iain Paisley Jr so I’m not surprised at all. Anyone who took him seriously as an opponent of racism just because he turned up at that demo last week is naive.
    You could have left out the section beginning 'as an opponent' up to 'last week'...
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,542

    I am sure someone in trawling through their past comments to see what other 'helpful' contributions they have made to public discourse...

    Not exactly a nationally representative sample of academics - most of them seem to work at Goldsmiths...
    They are dead impartial that lot. The first one I google in his bio on his personal website states,

    "appeared on national television as a spokesperson for Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party."

    "a member of the founding national committee of Momentum (the controversial organisation established to support Corbyn's leadership of Labour)"
    Which of us are unbiased? Not DH. Not me not you for certain.
    The point is that they signed the letter as 'academics' rather than 'political operators'

    It is perfectly fine to have bias - but to try to pretend some sort of academic objectivity is where they have come unstuck. They should have signed in a personal rather than professional capacity.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,303

    I am sure someone in trawling through their past comments to see what other 'helpful' contributions they have made to public discourse...

    Not exactly a nationally representative sample of academics - most of them seem to work at Goldsmiths...
    They are dead impartial that lot. The first one I google in his bio on his personal website states,

    "appeared on national television as a spokesperson for Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party."

    "a member of the founding national committee of Momentum (the controversial organisation established to support Corbyn's leadership of Labour)"
    Which of us are unbiased? Not DH. Not me not you for certain.
    The point is that they signed the letter as 'academics' rather than 'political operators'

    It is perfectly fine to have bias - but to try to pretend some sort of academic objectivity is where they have come unstuck. They should have signed in a personal rather than professional capacity.

    I doubt they think of themselves as biased. Anyone who disagrees with them is simply 'wrong'.

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,238

    I am sure someone in trawling through their past comments to see what other 'helpful' contributions they have made to public discourse...

    Not exactly a nationally representative sample of academics - most of them seem to work at Goldsmiths...
    Has Rupert dispatched any of his journalists to Order Order yet.

    Woudn't so much need to trawl to find 2000 examples of racism would they?
    Proving what?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,383
    edited April 2

    I am sure someone in trawling through their past comments to see what other 'helpful' contributions they have made to public discourse...

    Not exactly a nationally representative sample of academics - most of them seem to work at Goldsmiths...
    They are dead impartial that lot. The first one I google in his bio on his personal website states,

    "appeared on national television as a spokesperson for Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party."

    "a member of the founding national committee of Momentum (the controversial organisation established to support Corbyn's leadership of Labour)"
    Which of us are unbiased? Not DH. Not me not you for certain.
    The point is that they signed the letter as 'academics' rather than 'political operators'

    It is perfectly fine to have bias - but to try to pretend some sort of academic objectivity is where they have come unstuck. They should have signed in a personal rather than professional capacity.
    Makes you wonder whose idea the letter was...9 out of 10 of these round robin letter are put up jobs by party insiders, and they have become totally devalued now.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,542

    I am sure someone in trawling through their past comments to see what other 'helpful' contributions they have made to public discourse...

    Not exactly a nationally representative sample of academics - most of them seem to work at Goldsmiths...
    They are dead impartial that lot. The first one I google in his bio on his personal website states,

    "appeared on national television as a spokesperson for Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party."

    "a member of the founding national committee of Momentum (the controversial organisation established to support Corbyn's leadership of Labour)"
    Which of us are unbiased? Not DH. Not me not you for certain.
    The point is that they signed the letter as 'academics' rather than 'political operators'

    It is perfectly fine to have bias - but to try to pretend some sort of academic objectivity is where they have come unstuck. They should have signed in a personal rather than professional capacity.
    Makes you wonder whose idea the letter was...9 out of 10 of these round robin letter are put up jobs by party insiders, and they have become totally devalued now.
    Given the spread of institutions, it looks very much like a Goldsmiths centred campaign. Quite which one of them was the ringleader, we can only speculate.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 1,468

    I am sure someone in trawling through their past comments to see what other 'helpful' contributions they have made to public discourse...

    Not exactly a nationally representative sample of academics - most of them seem to work at Goldsmiths...
    They are dead impartial that lot. The first one I google in his bio on his personal website states,

    "appeared on national television as a spokesperson for Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party."

    "a member of the founding national committee of Momentum (the controversial organisation established to support Corbyn's leadership of Labour)"
    Which of us are unbiased? Not DH. Not me not you for certain.
    The point is that they signed the letter as 'academics' rather than 'political operators'

    It is perfectly fine to have bias - but to try to pretend some sort of academic objectivity is where they have come unstuck. They should have signed in a personal rather than professional capacity.
    Makes you wonder whose idea the letter was...9 out of 10 of these round robin letter are put up jobs by party insiders, and they have become totally devalued now.
    The other week I nearly managed to get a bunch of people to sign up to a letter calling for an end to UK media being owned by non-UK citizens.

    Being a fair person I stopped it - I'd had my joke.

    It was a literal translation of point 23 out of 25.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,666

    I am sure someone in trawling through their past comments to see what other 'helpful' contributions they have made to public discourse...

    Not exactly a nationally representative sample of academics - most of them seem to work at Goldsmiths...
    They are dead impartial that lot. The first one I google in his bio on his personal website states,

    "appeared on national television as a spokesperson for Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party."

    "a member of the founding national committee of Momentum (the controversial organisation established to support Corbyn's leadership of Labour)"
    Which of us are unbiased? Not DH. Not me not you for certain.
    The point is that they signed the letter as 'academics' rather than 'political operators'

    It is perfectly fine to have bias - but to try to pretend some sort of academic objectivity is where they have come unstuck. They should have signed in a personal rather than professional capacity.
    Makes you wonder whose idea the letter was...9 out of 10 of these round robin letter are put up jobs by party insiders, and they have become totally devalued now.
    Given the spread of institutions, it looks very much like a Goldsmiths centred campaign. Quite which one of them was the ringleader, we can only speculate.
    As the song went "Jeremy is Innocent."

    Okay, Jeremy Thorpe.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,488
    From 2011 - information on Sameh Habeeb

    http://hurryupharry.org/2011/11/14/sameh-habeeb-and-labour/

    Hmm - the problem has been around for a bit longer than momentum would like to admit.
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 581
    I wonder if the BBC will give the Guardian letter any coverage?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,299
    Off-topic:

    A rocket launches in seven minutes. Watch live at:
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,103

    I wonder if the BBC will give the Guardian letter any coverage?

    They seem to be covering Winifred Mandela passing in some detail as do Sky
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,145
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 6,766


    Idk if the full Momentum statement featured in the previous links to their comments, but here it is either way. Since they are coming out pretty strong we might just see some action on this issue.
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 581
    Nigelb said:
    The anti Corbyn bias, if there is any, is coming from MPs and others in the Labour Party. When Momentum have accepted there is a problem with anti Semitism it's a fair bet that there is.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,145



    Idk if the full Momentum statement featured in the previous links to their comments, but here it is either way. Since they are coming out pretty strong we might just see some action on this issue.

    Strong statement, but will their own members agree?
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 3,542



    Idk if the full Momentum statement featured in the previous links to their comments, but here it is either way. Since they are coming out pretty strong we might just see some action on this issue.

    As ever, there is a complete blank when it comes to accepting any responsibility for helping to create the atmosphere where antisemitism has been allowed to flourish.

    All the 're-education' will be for nought unless Corbyn and his fellow travellers accept that they helped create the problem.

    And no, I am not saying they created antisemitism - I am saying that they helped create a situation where it became more acceptable than before to express such views openly within the Labour movement.

    Condemnation without action is meaningless. Suspension followed by re-admittance is meaningless. The lack of high profile expulsions and the continued platform sharing/endorsing is what is fuelling things. I do not believe this will change.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 4,985

    I am sure someone in trawling through their past comments to see what other 'helpful' contributions they have made to public discourse...

    Not exactly a nationally representative sample of academics - most of them seem to work at Goldsmiths...
    They are dead impartial that lot. The first one I google in his bio on his personal website states,

    "appeared on national television as a spokesperson for Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party."

    "a member of the founding national committee of Momentum (the controversial organisation established to support Corbyn's leadership of Labour)"
    Which of us are unbiased? Not DH. Not me not you for certain.
    The point is that they signed the letter as 'academics' rather than 'political operators'

    It is perfectly fine to have bias - but to try to pretend some sort of academic objectivity is where they have come unstuck. They should have signed in a personal rather than professional capacity.
    Makes you wonder whose idea the letter was...9 out of 10 of these round robin letter are put up jobs by party insiders, and they have become totally devalued now.
    Given the spread of institutions, it looks very much like a Goldsmiths centred campaign. Quite which one of them was the ringleader, we can only speculate.
    Excellent! Having cast aspersions on the signatories and used scare quotes ('academics'), all that is left is to identify the ringleader! I'll get the pitchforks and torches, m'lud.

  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 6,766



    Idk if the full Momentum statement featured in the previous links to their comments, but here it is either way. Since they are coming out pretty strong we might just see some action on this issue.

    Strong statement, but will their own members agree?
    Well, that’s the big if. That those at the top of the organisation are telling many of the deniers that they are talking BS though is a start. We’ll see where it goes from here.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263
    kle4 said:

    Today I had what is only my third WH2020 bet at 280/1 on Betfair. I’m planing a separate post.

    Ooh, what a tease.

    I'm going for John Hickenlooper

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 4,985
    Floater said:

    From 2011 - information on Sameh Habeeb

    http://hurryupharry.org/2011/11/14/sameh-habeeb-and-labour/

    Hmm - the problem has been around for a bit longer than momentum would like to admit.

    This convo has an added piquancy when you realise what "habibi" means in Arabic

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=habibi
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,138
    Yet another day when pb’s Leavers see fit to opine on how Labour supporters should address anti-Semitism without feeling able to identify any steps they can take to address the xenophobia they fell in behind during the referendum campaign.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,357

    ttps://twitter.com/peoplesmomentum/status/980812045162565637

    Idk if the full Momentum statement featured in the previous links to their comments, but here it is either way. Since they are coming out pretty strong we might just see some action on this issue.

    Good words, if a fortnight late. Now need to see positive actions to back them up, which is going to have to involve throwing people out of the party.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 654

    Jeremy does look embarrassed though
    Dan Hodges makes a living by being a journalist still.

    Apparently
    I agree with Momentum.

    Momentum has warned its supporters that accusations of antisemitism in Labour are not rightwing smears or conspiracy, saying unconscious anti-Jewish bias is “more widespread in the Labour party than many of us had understood even a few months ago”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/02/labour-antisemitism-more-widespread-than-thought-momentum-says
    As do I, in fact I think that has pretty much been my line for a while, some people seem to struggle with the suggestion that there is an opinion between there is no anti-semitism and it is all a conspiracy and there being a massive problem because of Corbyn with the media playing no part in building a narrative.

    __________________________
    However, Momentum’s national coordinating group said it was possible both to accept that antisemitism was a problem on parts of the left while also accepting that Corbyn had been attacked “using this issue as a way to undermine his leadership”.
    _________________________

    Do people read these things before they use them as attacks?

    Not that you feel into the trap yourself TSE.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263

    Yet another day when pb’s Leavers see fit to opine on how Labour supporters should address anti-Semitism without feeling able to identify any steps they can take to address the xenophobia they fell in behind during the referendum campaign.

    Or address the casual Islamophobia of an MP they are in alliance with.
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 581
    edited April 2
    In other news, Classic FM's Hall of Fame for 2018 has seen Vaughan Williams's Lark Ascending displaced as no 1 by Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture. Has the voting been rigged by Putin bots?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 654
    On topic:

    Interesting video I watched the previous one with Sanders as well, it would seem most good contenders would give Trump a challenge but the real question is who will actually end up as the Democrat nominee. Plenty of suggestions that two of the front runners, Biden and Sanders will not run which would leave a more open field. Difficult to make a call at this point with much certainty.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,103



    Idk if the full Momentum statement featured in the previous links to their comments, but here it is either way. Since they are coming out pretty strong we might just see some action on this issue.

    Strong statement, but will their own members agree?
    Well, that’s the big if. That those at the top of the organisation are telling many of the deniers that they are talking BS though is a start. We’ll see where it goes from here.
    I believe Christians, Jews, Muslims, all faiths and none should all have respect for each other. While my wife and I are Christians we do not critise other faiths as all faiths add value to peoples lives.

    As the late comedian, Dave Allen, used to say 'May your God go with you'

    However, their is a vile section of society on the hard left and hard right that must be called out and where anyone expresses vile views they have to be prevented or expelled from ever being a member of a main stream UK political party. There is no place in society for them
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 6,766

    Yet another day when pb’s Leavers see fit to opine on how Labour supporters should address anti-Semitism without feeling able to identify any steps they can take to address the xenophobia they fell in behind during the referendum campaign.

    Or address the casual Islamophobia of an MP they are in alliance with.
    That discussion on last night’s thread as well was pretty *ahem* interesting to say the least.
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 581

    Yet another day when pb’s Leavers see fit to opine on how Labour supporters should address anti-Semitism without feeling able to identify any steps they can take to address the xenophobia they fell in behind during the referendum campaign.

    Or address the casual Islamophobia of an MP they are in alliance with.
    You lost to a bus, get over it.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263
    edited April 2

    Yet another day when pb’s Leavers see fit to opine on how Labour supporters should address anti-Semitism without feeling able to identify any steps they can take to address the xenophobia they fell in behind during the referendum campaign.

    Or address the casual Islamophobia of an MP they are in alliance with.
    You lost to a bus, get over it.
    So you're defending/condoning Islamophobia.

    Noted you pound shop Corbynite.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 6,766



    Idk if the full Momentum statement featured in the previous links to their comments, but here it is either way. Since they are coming out pretty strong we might just see some action on this issue.

    Strong statement, but will their own members agree?
    Well, that’s the big if. That those at the top of the organisation are telling many of the deniers that they are talking BS though is a start. We’ll see where it goes from here.
    I believe Christians, Jews, Muslims, all faiths and none should all have respect for each other. While my wife and I are Christians we do not critise other faiths as all faiths add value to peoples lives.

    As the late comedian, Dave Allen, used to say 'May your God go with you'

    However, their is a vile section of society on the hard left and hard right that must be called out and where anyone expresses vile views they have to be prevented or expelled from ever being a member of a main stream UK political party. There is no place in society for them
    I wholeheartedly agree with you, that’s a great post :)
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,622

    I am sure someone in trawling through their past comments to see what other 'helpful' contributions they have made to public discourse...

    Not exactly a nationally representative sample of academics - most of them seem to work at Goldsmiths...
    They are dead impartial that lot. The first one I google in his bio on his personal website states,

    "appeared on national television as a spokesperson for Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party."

    "a member of the founding national committee of Momentum (the controversial organisation established to support Corbyn's leadership of Labour)"
    Which of us are unbiased? Not DH. Not me not you for certain.
    The point is that they signed the letter as 'academics' rather than 'political operators'

    It is perfectly fine to have bias - but to try to pretend some sort of academic objectivity is
    The point is the MSM try to make out they are journalists not some sort of 'political operators'

    It is perfectly fine to have bias - but to try to pretend some sort of journalistic objectivity is ..........
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,386

    I am sure someone in trawling through their past comments to see what other 'helpful' contributions they have made to public discourse...

    Not exactly a nationally representative sample of academics - most of them seem to work at Goldsmiths...
    One of them is an 'Assistant Professor of Media' at Swansea, and is busy calling people who disagree with him names on Twitter.
    Assistant Professor of Media at Swansea has a kind of beautiful airy pointlessness, like some minor Andorran Jesuit functionary in the 16th century employed specifically to root out water-demons.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,775
    edited April 2

    Yet another day when pb’s Leavers see fit to opine on how Labour supporters should address anti-Semitism without feeling able to identify any steps they can take to address the xenophobia they fell in behind during the referendum campaign.

    There is a difference between holding a specific opinion, belief or view, such as antisemitism and voting for a complex constitutional change.

    When I vote Labour, Conservative or green in an election I don't agree with every clause, proposal or policy in the manifesto.

    In the same way Yes voters were free to vote Yes without endorsing all the half baked views that were showered over the media and airwaves in support of yes, No voters can not be assumed to endorse the detritus and objectionable views of some No supporters.

    To support any campaign or manifesto in totality you need to be a sheep or lemming.
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 581

    Yet another day when pb’s Leavers see fit to opine on how Labour supporters should address anti-Semitism without feeling able to identify any steps they can take to address the xenophobia they fell in behind during the referendum campaign.

    Or address the casual Islamophobia of an MP they are in alliance with.
    You lost to a bus, get over it.
    So you're defending/condoning Islamophobia.

    Noted you pound shop Corbynite.
    I'm not defending anything, and I'm certainly no Corbynite. I just find you and Meeks tarring all Leavers as xenophobes and islamaphobes rather tiresome, as well as wholly incorrect. Both of you seem incapable of coming to terms with the Referendum result.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 14,400

    Yet another day when pb’s Leavers see fit to opine on how Labour supporters should address anti-Semitism without feeling able to identify any steps they can take to address the xenophobia they fell in behind during the referendum campaign.

    Your record is stuck again Mr Meeks. Crawl back under your rock.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,273

    Yet another day when pb’s Leavers see fit to opine on how Labour supporters should address anti-Semitism without feeling able to identify any steps they can take to address the xenophobia they fell in behind during the referendum campaign.

    Or address the casual Islamophobia of an MP they are in alliance with.
    You lost to a bus, get over it.
    So you're defending/condoning Islamophobia.

    Noted you pound shop Corbynite.
    It's ok, he's not an islamophobe anymore.



  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,383
    SeanT said:

    I am sure someone in trawling through their past comments to see what other 'helpful' contributions they have made to public discourse...

    Not exactly a nationally representative sample of academics - most of them seem to work at Goldsmiths...
    One of them is an 'Assistant Professor of Media' at Swansea, and is busy calling people who disagree with him names on Twitter.
    Assistant Professor of Media at Swansea has a kind of beautiful airy pointlessness, like some minor Andorran Jesuit functionary in the 16th century employed specifically to root out water-demons.
    Go check out Prof Jeremy Gilbert University of East London for pointlessness. His website is proper up his own arse stuff in a total bollocks kind of way. Stephen hawking he is not.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263

    Yet another day when pb’s Leavers see fit to opine on how Labour supporters should address anti-Semitism without feeling able to identify any steps they can take to address the xenophobia they fell in behind during the referendum campaign.

    Or address the casual Islamophobia of an MP they are in alliance with.
    You lost to a bus, get over it.
    So you're defending/condoning Islamophobia.

    Noted you pound shop Corbynite.
    I'm not defending anything, and I'm certainly no Corbynite. I just find you and Meeks tarring all Leavers as xenophobes and islamaphobes rather tiresome, as well as wholly incorrect. Both of you seem incapable of coming to terms with the Referendum result.
    I didn't tar you as an Islamophobe, I just pointed out all those getting exercised by the Labour anti-semitism stuff are very quiet on Ian Paisley Jnr.

    I'm interested in why that is.

    I've accepted the referendum result, I'm working to make it a success.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 4,985



    Idk if the full Momentum statement featured in the previous links to their comments, but here it is either way. Since they are coming out pretty strong we might just see some action on this issue.

    Strong statement, but will their own members agree?
    Well, that’s the big if. That those at the top of the organisation are telling many of the deniers that they are talking BS though is a start. We’ll see where it goes from here.
    I believe Christians, Jews, Muslims, all faiths and none should all have respect for each other. While my wife and I are Christians we do not critise other faiths as all faiths add value to peoples lives.

    As the late comedian, Dave Allen, used to say 'May your God go with you'

    However, their is a vile section of society on the hard left and hard right that must be called out and where anyone expresses vile views they have to be prevented or expelled from ever being a member of a main stream UK political party. There is no place in society for them
    +1
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,138
    philiph said:

    Yet another day when pb’s Leavers see fit to opine on how Labour supporters should address anti-Semitism without feeling able to identify any steps they can take to address the xenophobia they fell in behind during the referendum campaign.

    There is a difference between holding a specific opinion, belief or view, such as antisemitism and voting for a complex constitutional change.

    When I vote Labour, Conservative or green in an election I don't agree with every clause, proposal or policy in the manifesto.

    In the same way Yes voters were free to vote Yes without endorsing all the half baked views that were showered over the media and airwaves in support of yes, No voters can not be assumed to endorse the detritus and objectionable views of some No supporters.

    To support any campaign or manifesto in totality you need to be a sheep or lemming.
    Xenophobia was at the core of both Leave campaigns, which sought to frighten voters with untrue stories that millions of Muslims were set to immigrate to Britain if it stayed in the EU.

    This wasn’t a fringe element, this was a central plank of the Leave prospectus.

    And now Leave voters who claim to be shocked by Labour anti-Semitism apparently think Leave xenophobia is just fine.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263

    Yet another day when pb’s Leavers see fit to opine on how Labour supporters should address anti-Semitism without feeling able to identify any steps they can take to address the xenophobia they fell in behind during the referendum campaign.

    Or address the casual Islamophobia of an MP they are in alliance with.
    You lost to a bus, get over it.
    So you're defending/condoning Islamophobia.

    Noted you pound shop Corbynite.
    It's ok, he's not an islamophobe anymore.



    Perhaps I should tell him the murderers in London are all Catholics.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,138

    Yet another day when pb’s Leavers see fit to opine on how Labour supporters should address anti-Semitism without feeling able to identify any steps they can take to address the xenophobia they fell in behind during the referendum campaign.

    Your record is stuck again Mr Meeks. Crawl back under your rock.
    For as long as the site’s Leave supporters contend that the Leave campaign’s xenophobia was an acceptable price to pay, I will keep noting their hypocrisy when complaining about examples of Labour anti-Semitism.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 14,400

    philiph said:

    Yet another day when pb’s Leavers see fit to opine on how Labour supporters should address anti-Semitism without feeling able to identify any steps they can take to address the xenophobia they fell in behind during the referendum campaign.

    There is a difference between holding a specific opinion, belief or view, such as antisemitism and voting for a complex constitutional change.

    When I vote Labour, Conservative or green in an election I don't agree with every clause, proposal or policy in the manifesto.

    In the same way Yes voters were free to vote Yes without endorsing all the half baked views that were showered over the media and airwaves in support of yes, No voters can not be assumed to endorse the detritus and objectionable views of some No supporters.

    To support any campaign or manifesto in totality you need to be a sheep or lemming.
    Xenophobia was at the core of both Leave campaigns, which sought to frighten voters with untrue stories that millions of Muslims were set to immigrate to Britain if it stayed in the EU.

    No it wasn't. Stop making things up. We already know you are a fuckwit of the first order. We don't need daily proof to remind us of the fact.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,238

    Yet another day when pb’s Leavers see fit to opine on how Labour supporters should address anti-Semitism without feeling able to identify any steps they can take to address the xenophobia they fell in behind during the referendum campaign.

    Or address the casual Islamophobia of an MP they are in alliance with.
    Whataboutery at its finest with a soupçon of twattish metaphor to help things along. What are the literal facts underlying "fell in behind" and "in alliance with"? (No need to answer that; there aren't any). Metaphors are intended to illuminate, not to hide the fact that you have nothing to say.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,138

    philiph said:

    Yet another day when pb’s Leavers see fit to opine on how Labour supporters should address anti-Semitism without feeling able to identify any steps they can take to address the xenophobia they fell in behind during the referendum campaign.

    There is a difference between holding a specific opinion, belief or view, such as antisemitism and voting for a complex constitutional change.

    When I vote Labour, Conservative or green in an election I don't agree with every clause, proposal or policy in the manifesto.

    In the same way Yes voters were free to vote Yes without endorsing all the half baked views that were showered over the media and airwaves in support of yes, No voters can not be assumed to endorse the detritus and objectionable views of some No supporters.

    To support any campaign or manifesto in totality you need to be a sheep or lemming.
    Xenophobia was at the core of both Leave campaigns, which sought to frighten voters with untrue stories that millions of Muslims were set to immigrate to Britain if it stayed in the EU.

    No it wasn't. Stop making things up. We already know you are a fuckwit of the first order. We don't need daily proof to remind us of the fact.
    Turkey is not joining the EU.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,429

    philiph said:

    Yet another day when pb’s Leavers see fit to opine on how Labour supporters should address anti-Semitism without feeling able to identify any steps they can take to address the xenophobia they fell in behind during the referendum campaign.

    There is a difference between holding a specific opinion, belief or view, such as antisemitism and voting for a complex constitutional change.

    When I vote Labour, Conservative or green in an election I don't agree with every clause, proposal or policy in the manifesto.

    In the same way Yes voters were free to vote Yes without endorsing all the half baked views that were showered over the media and airwaves in support of yes, No voters can not be assumed to endorse the detritus and objectionable views of some No supporters.

    To support any campaign or manifesto in totality you need to be a sheep or lemming.
    Xenophobia was at the core of both Leave campaigns, which sought to frighten voters with untrue stories that millions of Muslims were set to immigrate to Britain if it stayed in the EU.

    This wasn’t a fringe element, this was a central plank of the Leave prospectus.

    And now Leave voters who claim to be shocked by Labour anti-Semitism apparently think Leave xenophobia is just fine.
    Monomaniac continues to plough his shallow furrow....
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 1,468
    edited April 2
    IIRC Wahhabi (like a lot of WeAreTheTrueFaith types) define themselves as TheTrueBeliversWhoAreBotheringGodCorrectlyUnlikeYouYesYouInTheCornerThere.

    So there is no sect - in fact the suggestion that they are a mere sect is a bit heretical - they are the OneTrueFaiith
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 857
    edited April 2

    philiph said:

    Yet another day when pb’s Leavers see fit to opine on how Labour supporters should address anti-Semitism without feeling able to identify any steps they can take to address the xenophobia they fell in behind during the referendum campaign.

    There is a difference between holding a specific opinion, belief or view, such as antisemitism and voting for a complex constitutional change.

    When I vote Labour, Conservative or green in an election I don't agree with every clause, proposal or policy in the manifesto.

    In the same way Yes voters were free to vote Yes without endorsing all the half baked views that were showered over the media and airwaves in support of yes, No voters can not be assumed to endorse the detritus and objectionable views of some No supporters.

    To support any campaign or manifesto in totality you need to be a sheep or lemming.
    Xenophobia was at the core of both Leave campaigns, which sought to frighten voters with untrue stories that millions of Muslims were set to immigrate to Britain if it stayed in the EU.

    No it wasn't. Stop making things up. We already know you are a fuckwit of the first order. We don't need daily proof to remind us of the fact.
    Turkey is not joining the EU.
    Their accession chapters haven't been thrown out and that speaks volumes. So desperate to let the expansionism continue into Northern Cyprus in the near term, whether or not they have the support of the people or to hell with the people.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 5,488
    Please - can you all just ignore the guy

    Sanity will return in time
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,263
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Yet another day when pb’s Leavers see fit to opine on how Labour supporters should address anti-Semitism without feeling able to identify any steps they can take to address the xenophobia they fell in behind during the referendum campaign.

    Or address the casual Islamophobia of an MP they are in alliance with.
    Whataboutery at its finest with a soupçon of twattish metaphor to help things along. What are the literal facts underlying "fell in behind" and "in alliance with"? (No need to answer that; there aren't any). Metaphors are intended to illuminate, not to hide the fact that you have nothing to say.
    The fact that Paisley Junior has apologised for his Islamophobia makes you look foolish, I'd call you a twat in reply, but we both know you neither have the warmth or the depth.

    In alliance with means the DUP confidence and supply deal the Tories have that keeps them in power. Perhaps you missed it.
  • SeanT said:

    I am sure someone in trawling through their past comments to see what other 'helpful' contributions they have made to public discourse...

    Not exactly a nationally representative sample of academics - most of them seem to work at Goldsmiths...
    One of them is an 'Assistant Professor of Media' at Swansea, and is busy calling people who disagree with him names on Twitter.
    Assistant Professor of Media at Swansea has a kind of beautiful airy pointlessness, like some minor Andorran Jesuit functionary in the 16th century employed specifically to root out water-demons.
    Go check out Prof Jeremy Gilbert University of East London for pointlessness. His website is proper up his own arse stuff in a total bollocks kind of way. Stephen hawking he is not.
    I'm a senior teacher, and the mere mention of the 'University of East London' sends my blood pressure soaring. Similarly Huddersfield, Edge Hill and whatever Luton HE College is called these days.
This discussion has been closed.