Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: The Appeal of Jeremy Corbyn

  1. #1

    Default The Appeal of Jeremy Corbyn

    Since the Donald Trump thread has got masses of posts I thought I would copy-cat with one of my own...

    What is the appeal of Jeremy Corbyn?

    For those who don't know: he is a scruffy looking 66-year-old member of the Labour party hard left, he has no-experience in political office except his 32 years in parliament, his policies involve finding many many billions in extra taxes (from somewhere or other) to spend on just about anything you could think of, except defence and nuclear weapons. He would really rather like to quit NATO, and the EU, and get rid of the monarchy, but it's likely that none of these will be actual party policy (maybe the NATO one...)

    All of his ideas are far from the political consensus advanced by the "serious people" in big UK political parties and respectable newspapers.

    That's probably why he's just won the Labour party leadership election with 250,000 votes (60% of the total) beating 3 other candidates.

    Myself, although I am a leftist, and young, and political and nerdy, (allegedly his core demographic) I don't find him really appealing. I do think I understand his appeal, because to me it seems like the same as Nigel Farage, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump...

    To me Jeremy Corbyn seems to have won people over by going out there and fearlessly telling his electorate exactly the kind of thing they want to hear. He doesn't seem ambitious (he was pushed into the race by his friends in an "it's your turn" fashion without expectation of winning.) He's a familiar social type - the beardy North London lefty with a bicycle and a vegetable patch - that people either find charming or unbearable. After years of centrist compromise politics people are in a mood for "principles, no matter if we win or loose..."

    The problem I have with this kind of thing is that it makes 20% of the public love you, but completely alienates most of the remaining 80%. I don't really want a politician who will tell me what I want to hear - I want someone who will tell me a workable plan that will serve the interests of a majority of the country, that doesn't involve outright attack on the interests of rest. What I fear is that increasing inequality and cultural divergence has made building an election winning consensus for my kind of social justice - the kind where you shift 3% of GDP from private to public consumption - impossible (for the next decade at least.)

    What do people think?

    Is the meaning of Jeremy Corbyn as fascinating to think about as the meaning of Donald Trump? Is his win inspiring for supporters of outsider candidates in other countries and other parties? Or is he just sui generis, or sadly irrelevant?
    Last edited by MsClara; 12-Sep-2015 at 20:56.

  2. #2

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by MsClaraRiddle View Post
    For those who don't know: he is a scruffy looking 66-year-old member of the Labour party hard left, he has no-experience in political office except his 32 years in parliament.
    For a self-identified 'liberal', it's interesting that you've gone with the common Conservative attitude of ridiculing someone for their appearance and supposed lack of style, instead of policies. The only reason people voted for David Cameron and his disgusting, draconian abuse of the underprivileged was because our right-wing media convinced people that serious issues mattered less than how Ed Milliband (the honest and principled former Labour Leader) couldn't eat a bacon sandwich without looking weird.

    I wouldn't care if Corbyn wore a sun hat and a mankini, provided his policies and his conviction are sound.

    Also, I'd say retaining a seat for 32 years is actually quite a good grounding in politics. Many Prime Ministers don't keep their MP status for that long, and it's not like North London is the safest area for a Labour seat.



    Quote Originally Posted by MsClaraRiddle
    All of his ideas are far from the political consensus advanced by the "serious people" in big UK political parties and respectable newspapers.
    By 'serious people', I take it you mean the media and political oligarchy who have a vested interest in keeping wealth and power as a closed-shop for people who went to Eton and Harrow? Also, I'd like to see your definition of 'respectable newspapers'? The Guardian and the Independent are probably the most responsible and thorough papers in Britain and both are relatively pro-Corbyn.



    Quote Originally Posted by MsClaraRiddle
    To me Jeremy Corbyn seems to have won people over by going out there and fearlessly telling his electorate exactly the kind of thing they want to hear. He doesn't seem ambitious (he was pushed into the race by his friends in an "it's your turn" fashion without expectation of winning.) He's a familiar social type - the beardy North London lefty with a bicycle and a vegetable patch - that people either find charming or unbearable. After years of centrist compromise politics people are in a mood for "principles, no matter if we win or loose..."
    If you think Corbyn is acting 'fearlessly', then how is he just telling the public what they want to hear? And if he's unelectable like you claim, how can he be peddling policies and rhetoric which are populist? That makes no sense whatsoever.

    He's a familiar social type, but his social type is the genuine, principled ordinary man. We've had another familiar social type in power for years. The Oxbridge-educated warmongering, classist, big-business supporters, such as Cameron and Thatcher, who see fit to let the disabled, the poor and the unemployed starve on the streets provided big, privately-owned corporations are doing well and it looks like the economy is doing well. I know which I'd prefer to see as PM next.



    Quote Originally Posted by MsClaraRiddle
    Is the meaning of Jeremy Corbyn as fascinating to think about as the meaning of Donald Trump? Is his win inspiring for supporters of outsider candidates in other countries and other parties? Or is he just sui generis, or sadly irrelevant?
    The meaning of Jeremy Corbyn's success is that the time is ripe for a challenge to the outdated, exclusive establishment of this country, and to defend the institutions which our greatest PM, Clement Attlee, put into motion - a free health service, a cradle-to-grave support system, and more rights for ordinary, working-class people. For too long, the Conservatives have tricked ordinary Britons into voting against themselves by demonising those on unemployment benefits and poor families in council housing as our economic problems, to take our gaze away from the tax-dodging corporations they support and the obscenely rich media moguls who run vile 'news' media like The Daily Mail and The Sun.

    Jeremy Corbyn is electable. Unlike Donald Trump and David Cameron, he has rather more substance than just expensive suits and friends in high places.
    Last edited by Sanch; 13-Sep-2015 at 15:28.

  3. #3

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Sanch View Post
    For a self-identified 'liberal', it's interesting that you've gone with the common Conservative attitude of ridiculing someone for their appearance and supposed lack of style, instead of policies.
    I'm not a self-styled 'liberal' (well perhaps with a small l) - I did work out a comprehensive ideological label for myself which would be: Social-democratic libertarian municipalist feminist ecological co-operativism... but you can call me a "social democrat" or (like the Labour party) a "democratic socialist" for short. I've voted Labour in the last two general elections and I support the left-most electable program for the party.

    This is the problem I have with people who think having Corbyn as leader of the Labour party is a good idea... you start you answer like this:



    The only reason people voted for David Cameron and his disgusting, draconian abuse of the underprivileged was because our right-wing media convinced people that serious issues mattered less than how Ed Milliband (the honest and principled former Labour Leader) couldn't eat a bacon sandwich without looking weird.
    and you end it like this:



    Jeremy Corbyn is electable. Unlike Donald Trump and David Cameron, he has rather more substance than just expensive suits and friends in high places.
    I'll skip the question: do Conservative voters actually have ideas, ideals and preferences of their own, or are they just mindless drones pre-programmed by the right-wing press?

    Getting to the heart of the matter: if they could steal the election from Ed Miliband in that way, what makes you think they wont steal it from Jeremy Corbyn in the same way? and wont it be a hell of a lot easier to do?

    I don't understand how you can start off by saying that 11 million people voted for the disgusting and draconian David Cameron as against the 9 million who voted for honest and principled Ed Miliband because of the right wing media, but Jeremy Corbyn will win because... he's even more honest and principled? I would like that to be the case... I would like that.



    I wouldn't care if Corbyn wore a sun hat and a mankini, provided his policies and his conviction are sound.
    That's the point: you already think his policies and convictions are sound. I have a picture of Ed Miliband in a flower crown - I do not care if he might, like any other human being, choke on a bit of bacon rind. People would not have cared about that Ed Miliband pic if they hadn't already thought he was someone who had bitten off more than he could chew by becoming leader of the Labour party and that the job of Prime Minister was beyond him.



    Also, I'd say retaining a seat for 32 years is actually quite a good grounding in politics. Many Prime Ministers don't keep their MP status for that long, and it's not like North London is the safest area for a Labour seat.
    Jeremy Corbyn was elected in 1983, during Labour's worst post-war general election defeat. His seat of Islington North has been won by Labour at every election since 1937. The neighbouring seat of Islington South - with and without added Finsbury - has been Labour in every election since 1935. It's pretty much as safe as safe seats come.



    If you think Corbyn is acting 'fearlessly', then how is he just telling the public what they want to hear? And if he's unelectable like you claim, how can he be peddling policies and rhetoric which are populist? That makes no sense whatsoever.
    I said "fearlessly telling his electorate what they want to hear" - the word fearless is used ironically, and there's a big difference between the electorate in a Labour party leadership election, and the public in general. I suspect the public in general will warm to Jeremy Corbyn personally - he has a certain folksy unspun charm. Support him as Prime Minister? That's a very different question.



    The meaning of Jeremy Corbyn's success is that the time is ripe for a challenge to the outdated, exclusive establishment of this country, and to defend the institutions which our greatest PM, Clement Attlee, put into motion - a free health service, a cradle-to-grave support system, and more rights for ordinary, working-class people. For too long, the Conservatives have tricked ordinary Britons into voting against themselves by demonising those on unemployment benefits and poor families in council housing as our economic problems, to take our gaze away from the tax-dodging corporations they support and the obscenely rich media moguls who run vile 'news' media like The Daily Mail and The Sun.
    Our greatest PM, Clement Attlee... who gave us (amongst other things) the British nuclear weapons program. And put fees on prescriptions and false teeth and wigs and spectacles to pay for our participation in the Korean war... Despite what the Jeremy Corbyns of the 1930s, 40s, and 50s said about him, he's my hero too. But would we have had the Welfare State without World War 2? Has the present crisis of capitalism really primed the public ready for the kind of radical left program that Jeremy Corbyn will offer them? I will wait and see what is in the 2020 manifesto - a lot of it will be what I want, but as the political scientist Jagger once said:



    Quote Originally Posted by the political scientist Jagger
    You can't always get what you want,
    No you can't always get what you want,
    But if you try sometimes,
    You might find,
    You get what you need...

  4. #4

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by MsClaraRiddle View Post
    I'll skip the question: do Conservative voters actually have ideas, ideals and preferences of their own, or are they just mindless drones pre-programmed by the right-wing press?
    No need to skip it, I'm happy to answer that... Plenty of Tories do have ideas and preferences of their own, albeit ones which are usually motivated more by self-interest than the social greater good. However there are a lot of people who are on-the-fence close to election time, and the fact that the media oligarchs like Rupert Murdoch always spin an anti-Labour and especially anti-Socialist agenda means that unfortunately the people who buy the Murdoch tabloids are tipped onto the Tory side. The Murdoch-consortium's Sky News channel is also watched by millions, and is essentially like Fox News with slightly more research.




    Quote Originally Posted by MsClaraRiddle
    Getting to the heart of the matter: if they could steal the election from Ed Miliband in that way, what makes you think they wont steal it from Jeremy Corbyn in the same way? and wont it be a hell of a lot easier to do?
    Miliband was the first Labour leader since Kinnock to face this much right-wing bile from the media powers. Murdoch & co. liked Tony Blair. Of course they did. He was essentially just a short step to the left of John Major and in the late '90s the Tories were about as organised as a lost sock drawer. People were taken aback by and maybe drawn into the anti-Milliband sentiment, but now it's happening again, they're getting wise to it. People are also becoming increasingly disillusioned with a Tory govt. which is now unrestrained by the shackles of a Lib Dem coalition who could at least reign in their poor-bashing and shady corporate interests just a touch.



    Quote Originally Posted by MsClaraRiddle
    I don't understand how you can start off by saying that 11 million people voted for the disgusting and draconian David Cameron as against the 9 million who voted for honest and principled Ed Miliband because of the right wing media, but Jeremy Corbyn will win because... he's even more honest and principled? I would like that to be the case... I would like that.
    See above. I think (perhaps it's partly hope) that people are getting increasingly wise to the Tories' punitive policies (most of which they've disguised through euphemism and lies). I also think that a properly left-wing Labour will also win back a lot of the SNP seats and that the SNP fervour has hit its high point. I like Sturgeon, but I think the referendum-era fervour of Scottish nationalists may well have died down somewhat by 2020.



    Quote Originally Posted by MsClaraRiddle
    People would not have cared about that Ed Miliband pic if they hadn't already thought he was someone who had bitten off more than he could chew by becoming leader of the Labour party and that the job of Prime Minister was beyond him.
    Yes they would. Honestly, a lot of people openly voted Tory because they said they didn't respect Ed Miliband. Not because they didn't respect his policies or respect the Labour Party as a whole, but because they saw him as a bit of a buffoon. Both that image of Miliband and the idea that how he looked or even his slight social awkwardness matters one iota were peddled irrepressibly by right-wing politicians and media forces who had no real grounds on which to oppose a fair Britain other than that it challenged their entrenched privilege. Not that they'd ever say that out loud, of course.

    Also, from what you've said, I'm guessing too young to remember how The Sun basically performed a character assassination on Neil Kinnock and lost him an election, before gloating about how 'It Was The Sun Wot Won It'. That paper might not have the smartest readership, but the people who write & edit it knew exactly what you're doing.



    Quote Originally Posted by MsClaraRiddle
    Jeremy Corbyn was elected in 1983, during Labour's worst post-war general election defeat. His seat of Islington North has been won by Labour at every election since 1937. The neighbouring seat of Islington South - with and without added Finsbury - has been Labour in every election since 1935. It's pretty much as safe as safe seats come.
    It's also got a hive of blue close by. Harrow, Wingate, Finchley etc.. North London is an increasingly gentrified and conservative area, and he's done well to keep onto a seat there. It's fairly safe. Also Islington South had an SDP MP in the '80s. Admittedly a former-Labour one, but still...



    Quote Originally Posted by MsClaraRiddle
    Our greatest PM, Clement Attlee... who gave us (amongst other things) the British nuclear weapons program. And put fees on prescriptions and false teeth and wigs and spectacles to pay for our participation in the Korean war... Despite what the Jeremy Corbyns of the 1930s, 40s, and 50s said about him, he's my hero too. But would we have had the Welfare State without World War 2? Has the present crisis of capitalism really primed the public ready for the kind of radical left program that Jeremy Corbyn will offer them? I will wait and see what is in the 2020 manifesto - a lot of it will be what I want, but as the political scientist Jagger once said:
    Attlee actually put those fees on so as a token gesture to get more important matters within the NHS passed (source - Atlee: A Life in Politics, 2012 ed). The story about the Korean War (which did partly get funded from taxpayer money) has been exaggerated.

  5. #5

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Sanch View Post
    No need to skip it, I'm happy to answer that... Plenty of Tories do have ideas and preferences of their own, albeit ones which are usually motivated more by self-interest than the social greater good.
    Hmm... I'm not totally convinced by this idea that left votes are motivated by the greater good and right voters are selfish. I think / would like to believe that everyone with an income less than about 35,000 p.a. has a self-interest in the election of a Labour government, because I hope that a Labour government will give us policies that support growing employment, better wages and conditions, better public services, greater equality of wealth and power. (I can hope...) I have no problem with people voting for their self-interest in that sense. What frustrates me is seeing people who are well into the bottom half of the income distribution, less than 20,000 p.a., who selflessly vote Conservative because they think the Tories "know how to run an economy."



    However there are a lot of people who are on-the-fence close to election time, and the fact that the media oligarchs like Rupert Murdoch always spin an anti-Labour and especially anti-Socialist agenda means that unfortunately the people who buy the Murdoch tabloids are tipped onto the Tory side. The Murdoch-consortium's Sky News channel is also watched by millions, and is essentially like Fox News with slightly more research.

    Miliband was the first Labour leader since Kinnock to face this much right-wing bile from the media powers. Murdoch & co. liked Tony Blair. Of course they did. He was essentially just a short step to the left of John Major and in the late '90s the Tories were about as organised as a lost sock drawer. People were taken aback by and maybe drawn into the anti-Milliband sentiment, but now it's happening again, they're getting wise to it. People are also becoming increasingly disillusioned with a Tory govt. which is now unrestrained by the shackles of a Lib Dem coalition who could at least reign in their poor-bashing and shady corporate interests just a touch.



    See above. I think (perhaps it's partly hope) that people are getting increasingly wise to the Tories' punitive policies (most of which they've disguised through euphemism and lies). I also think that a properly left-wing Labour will also win back a lot of the SNP seats and that the SNP fervour has hit its high point. I like Sturgeon, but I think the referendum-era fervour of Scottish nationalists may well have died down somewhat by 2020.



    Yes they would. Honestly, a lot of people openly voted Tory because they said they didn't respect Ed Miliband. Not because they didn't respect his policies or respect the Labour Party as a whole, but because they saw him as a bit of a buffoon. Both that image of Miliband and the idea that how he looked or even his slight social awkwardness matters one iota were peddled irrepressibly by right-wing politicians and media forces who had no real grounds on which to oppose a fair Britain other than that it challenged their entrenched privilege. Not that they'd ever say that out loud, of course.

    Also, from what you've said, I'm guessing too young to remember how The Sun basically performed a character assassination on Neil Kinnock and lost him an election, before gloating about how 'It Was The Sun Wot Won It'. That paper might not have the smartest readership, but the people who write & edit it knew exactly what you're doing.



    It's also got a hive of blue close by. Harrow, Wingate, Finchley etc.. North London is an increasingly gentrified and conservative area, and he's done well to keep onto a seat there. It's fairly safe. Also Islington South had an SDP MP in the '80s. Admittedly a former-Labour one, but still...



    Attlee actually put those fees on so as a token gesture to get more important matters within the NHS passed (source - Atlee: A Life in Politics, 2012 ed). The story about the Korean War (which did partly get funded from taxpayer money) has been exaggerated.
    I'm not sure you have an argument against anything I said...

    Ed Miliband was the subject of a relentless attack by the right-wing press from the day he was elected. I don't deny that. However if you think Jeremy Corbyn is going to end up as Prime Minister, you've got to think of a way he can survive a similar or even more relentless right-wing press attack, because I can't.

    I think people who are suffering from Conservative policy have got wise to them... but I don't think many of the people who are worse off under the Tories were going to vote, never mind vote Tory. If the Conservatives can keep 40% of the electorate on side they're fine.

    I'm 27 and you're 25, so in fact neither of us is old enough to really remember Kinnock's head inside a light-bulb... have you ever seen a TV documentary about the Labour party in the early 1980s?

    Here's another thing: I read The Guardian, The Independent, and New Statesman. I watch Al-Jazeera English and Channel 4 news and listen to BBC Radio. I bet you do too. My opinions have been shaped by my media diet, but I also shape my media diet to my tastes. The commercial press know what their readers like the taste of, and they give it to them. The truth is that people who read tabloids love to hear a loony left story, in the same way people like you and I love to read the latest stupid thing to come out of Donald Trump or UKIP. Have we just been taken in by liberal media?

    I think you're wrong about Scotland. However even if a more left-wing Labour party can win back 25 Scottish seats, Labour will still need to win 75 Conservative held seats in England and Wales to form a government with a bare majority. The idea of a Labour party in the pocket of the SNP was a powerful attack line in the General Election - it's an even simpler attack to say: "remember last time when you were afraid the SNP would force Ed Miliband into doing XYZ? Well Jeremy Corbyn wants to do XYZ, not to mention ABC, on his own - and god knows what he and John McDonnell have cooked up between them!"
    The SNP love Jeremy Corbyn. At the next election they can simply say: "why vote SNP-lite when you can have the real thing?" and watch as Labour lose even more seats in England to the Conservatives. Then in 2024 they can hold another referendum and point to the continuing Conservative dominance in England as evidence it's time to split.

    The point I was making about Attlee and the NHS and Korea is this: just the kind of realist and pragmatic decision that is required of a Prime Minister operating in the real world. Is this the kind of thing Jeremy Corbyn would be capable of? I fear he is temperamentally unsuited to not being able to have everything his own way all at once. Maybe he can learn that as leader. This whole affair reminds me of the episode of Dad's Army where Private Frazer is put in charge of the platoon for a week...

  6. #6

    Default

    i see him as just part of a transitional phase (asorting-out the sock drawer) of Labour trying to re-find itself after the nonce-years. but, naturally, it never shall for as long as 'Labour' knows nowt of labouring and masquerades on perverted ideals.
    it's a sell-out that goes back to the early days, when some in the Labour Movement sought to make change from within the 'system', thereby becoming the evil they sought to oust, thence to give us the likes of Cyril Smith and Tony Blair (and whomever else may follow, or hasn't yet been named).

    anyways, by his looks (if we're to judge), it's looks as though he could pop his clogs at any moment.

    that's all for now, comrades.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by ade View Post
    i see him as just part of a transitional phase (asorting-out the sock drawer) of Labour trying to re-find itself after the nonce-years. but, naturally, it never shall for as long as 'Labour' knows nowt of labouring and masquerades on perverted ideals.
    it's a sell-out that goes back to the early days, when some in the Labour Movement sought to make change from within the 'system', thereby becoming the evil they sought to oust, thence to give us the likes of Cyril Smith and Tony Blair (and whomever else may follow, or hasn't yet been named).

    anyways, by his looks (if we're to judge), it's looks as though he could pop his clogs at any moment.

    that's all for now, comrades.
    Hmm... working within the parliamentary capitalist system leads to paedophilia and child abuse? Exactly the quality of contribution I've come to expect from you Ade.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by MsClaraRiddle View Post
    Hmm... working within the parliamentary capitalist system leads to paedophilia and child abuse? Exactly the quality of contribution I've come to expect from you Ade.
    well, rape is capitalizing on an opportunity
    and since you mention the french 'parliament' rather than an english 'speaking house', let's not forget that the norman-french came here to rape the land and it's people. and so it goes on.

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by MsClaraRiddle View Post
    I'm not sure you have an argument against anything I said...
    I've just presented that argument, in which I disagreed with your conclusions and explained why. Whether or not you agree with anything I've said (presumably not) is up to you, but I've addressed the points you made so you can cut the patronising tone.



    Quote Originally Posted by MsClaraRiddle
    Here's another thing: I read The Guardian, The Independent, and New Statesman. I watch Al-Jazeera English and Channel 4 news and listen to BBC Radio. I bet you do too. My opinions have been shaped by my media diet, but I also shape my media diet to my tastes. The commercial press know what their readers like the taste of, and they give it to them. The truth is that people who read tabloids love to hear a loony left story, in the same way people like you and I love to read the latest stupid thing to come out of Donald Trump or UKIP. Have we just been taken in by liberal media?
    I agree that we consume media which agrees with what we think. I enjoy engaging with other socialists on Twitter but I'm aware that it's essentially like shouting into a vacuum. Everyone who agrees with you will nod and reply favourably and everyone who doesn't will ignore it and disagree. The difference I think between laughing at someone like Trump and laughing at Corbyn is that when I laugh at Trump it's because he says things which are patently factually untrue, often hypocritical of other things he supposedly believes, and because he tweeted about 'losers and haters' in reference to 9/11. I laugh at him because he's moronic, misinformed and racist, things which a politician shouldn't be. Right-wingers laugh at Corbyn because he wears knitted jumpers and preaches earnest values. Those are stupid reasons to ridicule someone.



    Quote Originally Posted by MsClaraRiddle
    The point I was making about Attlee and the NHS and Korea is this: just the kind of realist and pragmatic decision that is required of a Prime Minister operating in the real world. Is this the kind of thing Jeremy Corbyn would be capable of? I fear he is temperamentally unsuited to not being able to have everything his own way all at once. Maybe he can learn that as leader. This whole affair reminds me of the episode of Dad's Army where Private Frazer is put in charge of the platoon for a week...
    I don't agree with this idea that ideals can never be translated into the real world. The NHS was, for many years, a socialist ideal that eventually made it through parliament and has become an institution cherished by millions. I think Corbyn's temperament is fine, for what it's worth. The fact he's angry (and there's a lot to be angry about in terms of the Cameron cabinet's rule of Britain) doesn't mean he expects he can rectify everything overnight, it just means that he knows there's a lot of inequality in Britain which isn't being challenged, and will be if and when he's in power. In both hope and principle, I'll go with 'when'.



    Quote Originally Posted by ade
    i see him as just part of a transitional phase (asorting-out the sock drawer) of Labour trying to re-find itself after the nonce-years. but, naturally, it never shall for as long as 'Labour' knows nowt of labouring and masquerades on perverted ideals.
    it's a sell-out that goes back to the early days, when some in the Labour Movement sought to make change from within the 'system', thereby becoming the evil they sought to oust, thence to give us the likes of Cyril Smith and Tony Blair (and whomever else may follow, or hasn't yet been named).
    Come on mate, the idea that Labour (or any other party) has been a paedophile-breeding machine is nonsense. There have been a handful of internal cover-ups (of varying size) relating to the crimes of certain political figures, but the overwhelming majority of our politicians (especially the ones with a focus on the protection of the vulnerable) are utterly horrified by the sexual abuse of children and want to see those responsible brought to justice.

  10. #10

    Default

    I think Corbyn, Trump, and Sanders are all different faces of the same phenomenon. People are tired of lies, weasel words and establishment politicians.

    While they are still bound by the same laws of economics and face the same foreign threats if they come into power, people are looking for someone who is at least going to try to change the status quo, and hopefully tell the truth about what they're doing and will try to do.

    The experiment is already underway here in the Democratic People's Republic of Illinois. The people spoke and elected businessman Bruce Rauner as governor. Half a year in, its still largely a standoff with the establishment machine, but at least he's sticking to his word and trying to straighten out the state's desperate situation.
    Last edited by Maxx; 15-Sep-2015 at 13:47.

Similar Threads

  1. Jeremy Kyle...again
    By bringmesunshine in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30-Jun-2015, 19:57
  2. Sex Appeal
    By 4077 in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-Nov-2011, 10:23

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.