Also in the News - Part 2

[Daggers]

2 hours ago, Leicesterpool said:

Anti monacy protesters arrested I see.... okay so when it comes to road protesters about the environment they don't get arrested yet if you protest at the side against the king its an arrestable offence?

 

Funny how people were disgusted when Russian police were arresting members of the public for protestesting against putin and the Ukraine war... but when it comes to the UK if anyone dares to hold a banner "not my king" people are like yeah bang them up...

 

Democracy eh?

That rabid free speech “you can’t say you’re English anymore” crowd are always at the front of the “go live somewhere else then” and “lock em up or fill em in” queue

[Leicesterpool]

Too many royal grovelers who live in a dream world who think the royals are faultless.... no ones perfect I grant you at anytime. But if you look back in time the royals have certainly bent the rules for their own benefit. Someone posted a picture of the crowds outside Buck house during the coronation of "no one cares about the monarchy eh?" but did they ask the question how many of that crowd were actually from the UK?

 

Anyway to bring my point, just because you might bowel to the royals doesn't mean you have the right to criticise others who don't so. People should respect others view. 

[Captain...]

4 hours ago, Leicesterpool said:

Anti monacy protesters arrested I see.... okay so when it comes to road protesters about the environment they don't get arrested yet if you protest at the side against the king its an arrestable offence?

 

Funny how people were disgusted when Russian police were arresting members of the public for protestesting against putin and the Ukraine war... but when it comes to the UK if anyone dares to hold a banner "not my king" people are like yeah bang them up...

 

Democracy eh?

To be fair I've seen plenty about the protests being outrageous.

[Bordersfox]

1 hour ago, Leicesterpool said:

Too many royal grovelers who live in a dream world who think the royals are faultless.... no ones perfect I grant you at anytime. But if you look back in time the royals have certainly bent the rules for their own benefit. Someone posted a picture of the crowds outside Buck house during the coronation of "no one cares about the monarchy eh?" but did they ask the question how many of that crowd were actually from the UK?

 

Anyway to bring my point, just because you might bowel to the royals doesn't mean you have the right to criticise others who don't so. People should respect others view. 

I would like to empty my bowels over the Royal Family.  Does that count?

[Dames]

4 hours ago, Daggers said:

That rabid free speech “you can’t say you’re English anymore” crowd are always at the front of the “go live somewhere else then” and “lock em up or fill em in” queue

The most contradictory type of person to ever exist. This country would literally be 100x better if these people had more than 1 brain cell. 

[HighPeakFox]

1 hour ago, Dames said:

The most contradictory type of person to ever exist. This country would literally be 100x better if these people had more than 1 brain cell. 

They do. They just choose to not use them - being wilfully mindless is a patriotic badge of honour to many. 

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

They do. They just choose to not use them - being wilfully mindless is a patriotic badge of honour to many. 

Yes, empathy not extending beyond one's line of sight both spatially and temporally is a real problem.

[Mike Oxlong]

The bizarre thing is that he’ll still be heavily backed ! 

 

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-sexually-abused-e-jean-carroll-civil-jury-finds-12877179

Edited 9 May 2023 by Mike Oxlong

[marbles]

1 hour ago, Mike Oxlong said:

The bizarre thing is that he’ll still be heavily backed ! 

 

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-sexually-abused-e-jean-carroll-civil-jury-finds-12877179

We’ve already been through this.

No one cared enough when other politicians were involved in sexual misconduct - so why should they care now?

 

[Mike Oxlong]

⬆️ - There you go 

[marbles]

1 hour ago, Mike Oxlong said:

⬆️ - There you go 

Oh, I see.

Trump does it = bad

Others do it = no big deal

 

Lol hypocrisy at its finest.

[Jon the Hat]

17 hours ago, Leicesterpool said:

Anti monacy protesters arrested I see.... okay so when it comes to road protesters about the environment they don't get arrested yet if you protest at the side against the king its an arrestable offence?

 

Funny how people were disgusted when Russian police were arresting members of the public for protestesting against putin and the Ukraine war... but when it comes to the UK if anyone dares to hold a banner "not my king" people are like yeah bang them up...

 

Democracy eh?

It is a worrying trend, but I don't believe there is any suggestion they have been prosecuted or indeed remain in detention, so to compare to arrests in Russia is a false equivalence.

 

Clearly there should have been somewhere for fervent republicans to protest without disrupting the day.  If they choose to attempt to actually disrupt the event I am not clear why anyone thinks they should be allowed to.

[leicsmac]

Edit: double post.

Edited 10 May 2023 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

The bizarre thing is that he’ll still be heavily backed ! 

 

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-sexually-abused-e-jean-carroll-civil-jury-finds-12877179

I don't think it's all that bizarre tbh, I would expect it.

 

Don't expect moral or reasonable behaviour when it comes to the subject of women and women's rights from those who have showed absolutely no hint of it in the past at both a political and personal level.

 

1 hour ago, marbles said:

Oh, I see.

Trump does it = bad

Others do it = no big deal

 

Lol hypocrisy at its finest.

When those "others" are actually found civilly responsible in a court of law (as opposed to the rumoured possibility of them being responsible) and are still lionised by their followers rather than mostly disavowed, then perhaps this comparison can be made.

[Jon the Hat]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I don't think it's all that bizarre tbh, I would expect it.

 

Don't expect moral or reasonable behaviour when it comes to the subject of women and women's rights from those who have showed absolutely no hint of it in the past at both a political and personal level.

 

When those "others" are actually found civilly responsible in a court of law (as opposed to the rumoured possibility of them being responsible) and are still lionised by their followers rather than mostly disavowed, then perhaps this comparison can be made.

They knew who he was all along, no surprise they don't care.  The dems I think tend to not believe it of their side.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

They knew who he was all along, no surprise they don't care.  The dems I think tend to not believe it of their side.

I think these days (as opposed to a few decades ago) they take it more seriously than their Repub counterparts though. Certainly at the ground level.

[Jon the Hat]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think these days (as opposed to a few decades ago) they take it more seriously than their Repub counterparts though. Certainly at the ground level.

Yes I can believe that.  Very different times to Clinton for sure.

[marbles]

37 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

When those "others" are actually found civilly responsible in a court of law (as opposed to the rumoured possibility of them being responsible) and are still lionised by their followers rather than mostly disavowed, then perhaps this comparison can be made.

Anthony Weiner still received endorsements and votes after serving time in prison.

Same exact thing - except one was a Democrat and the other a Republican.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, marbles said:

Anthony Weiner still received endorsements and votes after serving time in prison.

Same exact thing - except one was a Democrat and the other a Republican.

And he's had next to zero political career since, apart from trying to make a comeback now which a lot of people have advised him against doing.

 

Not exactly the same as continuing to be endorsed with the same elan for the highest of offices, is it?

[marbles]

Just now, leicsmac said:

And he's had next to zero political career since, apart from trying to make a comeback now which a lot of people have advised him against doing.

 

Not exactly the same as continuing to be endorsed with the same elan for the highest of offices, is it?

Same exact thing.

As was said, Trump would still receive support after his guilt as if overlooking sexual misconduct is exclusively a Republican trait - it’s not. Obviously.

 

 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, marbles said:

Same exact thing.

As was said, Trump would still receive support after his guilt as if overlooking sexual misconduct is exclusively a Republican trait - it’s not. Obviously.

 

 

Oh, I must have missed where Wiener was being endorsed by a statistically significant bloc of the Dem grassroots support for the US Presidency. My mistake, easily made, I guess.

 

Sorry not sorry for the sarcasm, my take is that there is a pretty clear distinction between the way both sides of the political aisle in the US treat such things, the different political level at which both individuals are currently operating proves this, and I think you're wrong. That's about it, really.

[marbles]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Oh, I must have missed where Wiener was being endorsed by a statistically significant bloc of the Dem grassroots support for the US Presidency. My mistake, easily made, I guess.

 

Sorry not sorry for the sarcasm, my take is that there is a pretty clear distinction between the way both sides of the political aisle in the US treat such things, the different political level at which both individuals are currently operating proves this, and I think you're wrong. That's about it, really.

For someone who hates misinformation, you sure don’t mind twisting the truth to suit your needs, do you?

 

Doesn’t matter what level of government we are talking.  Democratic voters supported a convicted and registered sex offender.  You can ignore it all you want, but it won’t change the fact that Democrats were willing to elect him to office, just as Republicans will be willing to vote for Trump again.  
 

Same EXACT levels of stupidity on both sides.

Edited 10 May 2023 by marbles

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, marbles said:

For someone who hates misinformation, you sure don’t mind twisting the truth to suit your needs, do you?

 

Doesn’t matter what level of government we are talking.  Democratic voters supported a convicted and registered sex offender.  You can ignore it all you want, but it won’t change the fact that Democrats were willing to elect him to office, just as Republicans will be willing to vote for Trump again.  
 

Same EXACT levels of stupidity on both sides.

There's no difference between a bog-standard elected office and that of the US Presidency in terms of power and influence, and by extension the person who should be trusted with that power and influence?

 

Fair enough.

 

NB. Let's say for a minute we take that as true and so all things on that matter are equal. The difference in policies between the two parties (and their supporters) on the topic of women's rights - to say nothing of other areas - is clear and obvious, so people can and should make a distinction there, too.

[marbles]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

There's no difference between a bog-standard elected office and that of the US Presidency in terms of power and influence, and by extension the person who should be trusted with that power and influence?

 

Fair enough.

 

NB. Let's say for a minute we take that as true and so all things on that matter are equal. The difference in policies between the two parties (and their supporters) on the topic of women's rights - to say nothing of other areas - is clear and obvious, so people can and should make a distinction there, too.

Strawman argument.

Just as we were not discussing the Presidency - you dragged that into the discussion.

The discussion was whether Repubs would vote for someone found guilty of a sexual offense.  I made the argument that yes, because it’s been done in the past by both Dems and Repubs.

To cloud the issue, and push any negative spotlight away from the Dems, you chose to narrow it down to Presidential elections - and now you want to broaden the discussion to Women’s rights.

 

You’re not having a discussion here. 

 

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, marbles said:

Strawman argument.

Just as we were not discussing the Presidency - you dragged that into the discussion.

The discussion was whether Repubs would vote for someone found guilty of a sexual offense.  I made the argument that yes, because it’s been done in the past by both Dems and Repubs.

To cloud the issue, and push any negative spotlight away from the Dems, you chose to narrow it down to Presidential elections - and now you want to broaden the discussion to Women’s rights.

 

You’re not having a discussion here.

 

 

Yes, it has. And I made the entirely valid point that only one side has done it to the level of endorsing someone found guilty of a sexual offence for the Presidency, and given the power and importance of that post compared to other elected officials I stand by the assertion that is an important distinction.

 

You want to talk about how the Dems are dirty too? Fair enough - they are and I'll happily admit that. There's a laundry list going through Clinton right through to Wiener. But it is a matter of record that they are not as bad as the Repubs in this regard.

 

Believe me, I would want - and expect - cleaner politicians too. But given how entrenched the two-party system is in the US, I don't see it happening any time soon, idealism is tempered by pragmatism and slow and progressive change, because that's the type most likely to work here.

 

I have little time for performative bothsidesism when one side is empirically causing more harm to women than the other, both at a policy and personal level.