|
Post by zenfootball2 on Feb 23, 2021 8:59:53 GMT 1
sorry got carried away thought i would post this as Biden gets used to his role and what are peoples hopes / concerns for Bidens term and if you had his ear what policys would you be pushing. Hopes unify the US , be a symbole of hope , let US be a unifier not a divider ,be a symbol of stability for the US , have coherent policys. he has appointed an acute and articulate secreatary of state in Antony J. Blinken he has a strong articulate and inteligent wife who seems a genuningly nice women. Concerns a very divided US agressive china who belive they are untouchable Bidens mental capacity is he his own president or Obamas puppet Vice president Harris will have more htan usual for vice ptesidents only time will tell will this be a good thing, you would hope that this will be a big boost for ethnic minortys after Trump www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/16/kamala-harris-vice-president-history-maker-powerBiden has vowed that Harris will be the “last person in the room” making important decisions, modelled on his relationship as vice-president with Obama, and has asked the vice-president-elect to bring her “lived experience” to every issue. Harris has said she wants to be a “full partner”. But in addition to her White House duties, following the Democrats’ two recent Senate victories in Georgia, Harris will also play a high-profile role in passing legislation on Capitol Hill." "Jennifer Lawless, a politics professor at the University of Virginia, said Harris’s pivotal role in the Senate will mean she “is going to be cast in a very different light than previous vice-presidents” and will make her crucial in terms of putting forward a legislative agenda.She added: “I can’t remember another time, and in contemporary history there isn’t one, where the vice-president is basically the person determining whether legislation gets to the president’s desk.” i was not a fan of trump i felt he was a vey divisive president but to be fair during his time some rab countrys did reach argeements with israel how much was down to trump who knows, after obama appeasing china and ignoring FBI concerns Trump was willing to confront china.whilst he appeared to be saying hte right words about the environment he could have been a lot more effectice on this, as a president he appeared to be a decent man with the principles you would hope a president would have, his election was also a watershed for all enthnic minoritys in america. So back to Biden; his administartion have been more effective in getting the vaccine out there, they have amuch cleare and choherent approach and this will save lives. he is trying to bring the country back together, he seems more comited to the environment. only time will tell how he feels to the uk he has irish ancestry and was photographed with a wanted IRA terorrist and did not seem very keen on brexit. his statment about chinas different cultural norms did not go down well with any one concerned about chinas human rights abuse. but it does feel like normality has resumed wich is a very good thing. i was delighted when Obama when he was elected and his health reforms promised much better care for the poor,he was also but his approach to china was weak and appeasing despit overwhelming evidence of intelectual property theft. Obama is clearly the power in the democrats and there were a number of speculative early articles of his interventions in some democratic candidates. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/22/barack-obama-joe-biden-presidency-influencewww.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/looking-obama-s-hidden-hand-candidate-coalescing-around-biden-n1147471"WASHINGTON — As Democrats begin to coalesce around Joe Biden as the moderate alternative to Bernie Sanders, there appears to be a quiet hand behind the rapid movement: former President Barack Obama. Obama spoke with his former vice president after he handily won the South Carolina primary on Saturday, and with Pete Buttigieg on Sunday when he dropped out of the Democratic race, according to people familiar with the calls. Buttigieg will travel from South Bend, Indiana to Dallas Monday and endorse Biden, multiple people familiar with the plan tell NBC News People close to Obama said the former president has been keeping close tabs on the race. They said the signal has been sent in the past 36 hours that he sees Biden as the candidate to back, and they don’t need Obama to say it publicly or privately." my concerns about biden is his capacity , when he goes from telepromter at times he has sounded inchoerent and used word salads and was promted by his wife but htis had no coverage in mainstream US press if you had his ear what policys would you be pushing. better equality laws reform the police to reduce racisim better health care for the poor policys that will make an impact on improving the environment in the next few years gun control( not going to happen) get tough on chinas theft of intelectual proprty, ban chinese students from universitys that have projects with game changing technology, dont allow chines students who are members of the communist party, reduce significantly the number of chines students, only allow chinese companys to be traded on the stock market that show no links to the comunist party and can show three years of proper audits, after so many chines companies have over inflated profits and reservers( one companys gold reservers were found to msnily fake lead bars) push china to improve human rights improvments link it to acces to us markets. good relationship with uk and sign a fair trade deal asap ideally allow uk to join Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) im not sure Biden was ever intended to be there for a full term but time will tell. clearly Vice President is making her mark and will be the obvious candidate for the next President. www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/feb/18/wheres-biden-veep-takes-solo-calls-foreign-leaders/ "Vice President Kamala Harris held her second call with a foreign leader this week, without President Joe Biden present. Former Vice President Mike Pence rarely took direct calls with foreign leaders — that was the role of then-President Donald J. Trump, who spoke on his own behalf. When Mr. Biden invited Republican senators to the White House to reach a bipartisan deal on coronavirus relief this month, it was his chief of staff, not the president, who set the tone of the meeting."
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Feb 23, 2021 9:30:20 GMT 1
this is about one of the most powerful and seemingly powerful women in the world and what that means for the world and the uk, i hope we can have a resoned perspectives and views on how we on this board view this.im actually rather hopfull he seems to be getting some god people in post and he brings some stability.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Feb 24, 2021 11:03:43 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Feb 24, 2021 21:15:21 GMT 1
Totally frightening! Any adherent to those so-called theories must be either attention-seeking, or short of grey matter!
|
|
|
Post by timgallon on Feb 24, 2021 22:54:08 GMT 1
I recall in the early years of the Trump presidency there was a lot made by certain Democrats of his mental health and fitness for office.
I suspect those same people are pretty quiet at the moment.
Claims that Biden is losing cognitive function don't seem that far fetched.
If he lasts more than 2 years in the job I will be quite surprised.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Feb 25, 2021 7:25:45 GMT 1
The 'For The People Act' will:
Establish Automatic Voter Registration. Prevent Voter Purges. End Gerrymandering. Expand Early Voting. Expose 'Dark Money'.
Limit the amount of money that Citizens United can pump into politics.
Strangely enough the Republicans aren't too keen and are calling it a power grab. I wonder why that would be.
|
|
|
Post by returnofthehype on Feb 25, 2021 8:00:49 GMT 1
The 'For The People Act' will:
Establish Automatic Voter Registration. Prevent Voter Purges. End Gerrymandering. Expand Early Voting. Expose 'Dark Money'.
Limit the amount of money that Citizens United can pump into politics.
Strangely enough the Republicans aren't too keen and are calling it a power grab. I wonder why that would be.
The two take aways from that are; Why would you limit Citizens United specifically from pumping money into politics and secondly what the hell is Gerrymandering, new word for me? The radical Left and far Right still have some way to go before they implode, which both will do, just a question when common sense prevails and they come closer together, as it’s America tho I won’t hold my breath.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Feb 25, 2021 8:44:58 GMT 1
The 'For The People Act' will:
Establish Automatic Voter Registration. Prevent Voter Purges. End Gerrymandering. Expand Early Voting. Expose 'Dark Money'.
Limit the amount of money that Citizens United can pump into politics.
Strangely enough the Republicans aren't too keen and are calling it a power grab. I wonder why that would be.
The two take aways from that are; Why would you limit Citizens United specifically from pumping money into politics and secondly what the hell is Gerrymandering, new word for me? The radical Left and far Right still have some way to go before they implode, which both will do, just a question when common sense prevails and they come closer together, as it’s America tho I won’t hold my breath.
The one above is admittedly a simplistic view I know, but some states in the US have boundaries for certain districts that are this bad:
In some districts the boundaries run either side of a road connecting two smaller poor Dem. voting areas and splitting a larger, better off Rep. voting area to ensure that out of three areas two are more likely to vote for the Reps.
There is a train of thought in America now that is looking at reducing the amount of campaign finance that should come from a single entity, be that a billionaire or a corporation or someone donating $5 a month to help their local party campaign for an upcoming election for a school board. The amount of money in US politics is staggering and the TV ads for Governor, Senator or Congress member elections cost billions every year. If you really want a great example of this just watch the Richard Prior film Brewsters Millions. It might be a parody, but the accuracy is abundant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2021 10:20:12 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Feb 25, 2021 12:42:48 GMT 1
Totally frightening! Any adherent to those so-called theories must be either attention-seeking, or short of grey matter! It is, what chance do you have when the so called "antiracism" is racist in itself... And more besides... This from the Chinese-American Citizens Alliance of Greater New York (CACAGNY)... CACAGNY Denounces Critical Race Theory as Hateful Fraud
And another from training to health care workers... 'Divisive and offensive' race theory training forced on San Diego County healthcare workers
No doubt we'll be hearing about more of this moving forward and in turn, hopefully the actions taken against such "training" and "education". This is why is was good to hear the Tories speak out against CRT and why I think it best we do all we can to keep the modern left out of government.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Feb 25, 2021 12:59:55 GMT 1
Totally frightening! Any adherent to those so-called theories must be either attention-seeking, or short of grey matter! It is, what chance do you have when the so called "antiracism" is racist in itself... And more besides... This from the Chinese-American Citizens Alliance of Greater New York (CACAGNY)... CACAGNY Denounces Critical Race Theory as Hateful Fraud
And another from training to health care workers... 'Divisive and offensive' race theory training forced on San Diego County healthcare workers
No doubt we'll be hearing about more of this moving forward and in turn, hopefully the actions taken against such "training" and "education". This is why is was good to hear the Tories speak out against CRT and why I think it best we do all we can to keep the modern left out of government. What about the modern right and the Christian fundamentalists? Some on the left are certainly barmy, but some on the right are positively dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Feb 25, 2021 13:19:33 GMT 1
What about the modern right and the Christian fundamentalists? Some on the left are certainly barmy, but some on the right are positively dangerous. Up to a point, yes, but I think you have your adjectives reversed!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2021 13:40:57 GMT 1
What about the modern right and the Christian fundamentalists? Some on the left are certainly barmy, but some on the right are positively dangerous. Indeed. People in funny hats gaining entry to the Capitol and all that. And, I think, we need to consider the history and context of race relations in the US. There's a lot of catching up to do with regards the US. And, not forgetting the history and context of race relations
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Feb 25, 2021 13:51:17 GMT 1
What about the modern right and the Christian fundamentalists? Some on the left are certainly barmy, but some on the right are positively dangerous. Up to a point, yes, but I think you have your adjectives reversed! Up to what point do you think the Christian fundamentalists and support for the Proud Boys and Qanon should be able to influence education? Should creationism have the same relevance as science? Should slavery be airbrushed from the history curriculum? Should climate change be dropped from geography and science classes? I'm intrigued as to how far they should go to pacify the Christian right and if you think that we should do the same over here.
|
|
|
O/T Biden
Feb 25, 2021 17:03:35 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by martinshrew on Feb 25, 2021 17:03:35 GMT 1
What about the modern right and the Christian fundamentalists? Some on the left are certainly barmy, but some on the right are positively dangerous. Up to a point, yes, but I think you have your adjectives reversed! Quite right. There's a few fruitcakes on the far right, however the movement of the far left is dangerous there's no two ways about it. Pre 2000 Labour voters are/would be utterly horrified with what their party has become.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Feb 25, 2021 17:10:59 GMT 1
|
|
|
O/T Biden
Feb 25, 2021 17:58:19 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by armchairfan on Feb 25, 2021 17:58:19 GMT 1
There's no "would be" about it, proven by the result of the last GE: no matter how the Labour Party tries to dress it up ("Corbyn phobia", Brexit, the right-wing media, or perceived anti-semitism, blah blah) the party no longer represents the people for whom it was originally formed; this isn't just bad for the Party, but for Democracy itself. Whether any changes can be accomplished by a top-down re-think is questionable, and probably not desirable - any changes need to come from ordinary members without the attachment to "critical race theory" in particular, and wokeness in general. It is my fervent hope that this government appreciates the enormous responsibility and pressure which it must bear, and acts responsibly for the whole nation.... For a variety of reasons, I am not, so far, wholly impressed, but there is time to adjust. Cue whataboutery from the usual suspects, but it must be on them that the burden of making Labour electable falls....having "principles" is all fine and dandy, but flexibility, whilst maintaining one's core beliefs, is an essential prerequisite of our democratic system only with that can the Labour Party even begin to represent any significant part of the electorate. In the meantime, I agree that we, those of us on the centre-right of British politics must all do our very best, within the confines of our system, to keep the Labour Party as far away as possible from Government.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Feb 25, 2021 18:24:48 GMT 1
Up to a point, yes, but I think you have your adjectives reversed! Quite right. There's a few fruitcakes on the far right, however the movement of the far left is dangerous there's no two ways about it. Pre 2000 Labour voters are/would be utterly horrified with what their party has become. Yeah, how to put it. I think the point is this is getting a hearing and is being accepted in wider society; its being pushed in the work place, in higher education and worst still, in schools. I'd say that's the difference. In the USA of course. However, I'm sure there are people in the UK who would like to introduce CRT to the workplace or the classroom (they may have done already) and would deem it perfectly acceptable to do so. However, what could we point to from the far right that has found itself into the workplace or the classroom (I mean when it comes to training and what is to be taught)? Maybe there is but I can't think of anything. I suspect not. And you would hope not too. I hope you get what I mean. I think the wider public are guarded against the racism from the far right and simply would not say, accept it in the workplace, in schools, in universities etc. That ought to be the case when it comes to the racism we see from the left too (racism dressed as antiracism is still racism). I'm not sure it is as yet and I think that needs to change. Otherwise it might well get a pass and you end up with your kids being subjected to racism in the classroom (as some kids in the US now know). And just to add... Pre 2000 Labour voters are/would be utterly horrified with what their party has become.
Absolutely and that would very much explain why so many of its traditional support have turned their back on them. And who can blame them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2021 19:15:03 GMT 1
|
|
|
O/T Biden
Feb 25, 2021 19:58:21 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by armchairfan on Feb 25, 2021 19:58:21 GMT 1
In general terms you are quite right, but to even hint at some sort of equivalence, avoids confronting the fact that this nonsense has gained much more traction in recent times, and much more than right-wing extremism ever has done in the past (Grand Wizards of the KKK in classrooms?), and therefore constitutes a "clear and PRESENT danger, as I suggested above.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Feb 25, 2021 20:27:15 GMT 1
There's no "would be" about it, proven by the result of the last GE: no matter how the Labour Party tries to dress it up ("Corbyn phobia", Brexit, the right-wing media, or perceived anti-semitism, blah blah) the party no longer represents the people for whom it was originally formed; this isn't just bad for the Party, but for Democracy itself. Whether any changes can be accomplished by a top-down re-think is questionable, and probably not desirable - any changes need to come from ordinary members without the attachment to "critical race theory" in particular, and wokeness in general. It is my fervent hope that this government appreciates the enormous responsibility and pressure which it must bear, and acts responsibly for the whole nation.... For a variety of reasons, I am not, so far, wholly impressed, but there is time to adjust. Cue whataboutery from the usual suspects, but it must be on them that the burden of making Labour electable falls....having "principles" is all fine and dandy, but flexibility, whilst maintaining one's core beliefs, is an essential prerequisite of our democratic system only with that can the Labour Party even begin to represent any significant part of the electorate. In the meantime, I agree that we, those of us on the centre-right of British politics must all do our very best, within the confines of our system, to keep the Labour Party as far away as possible from Government. Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that the threat of violence from the right is greater than the threat from the left?
The burden of making Labour electable before 2024 falls on Keir Starmer and it is probably well beyond his capabilities. Hopefully there will be someone from within the party to do so in the following parliament. Until the Neo-liberal experiment with Starmer fails there will be no change in the Labour hierarchy. Once he has gone we will rebuild and hopefully make ourselves electable again, my biggest worry is that the country will have moved so far to the right in that time that anything to the left of Thatcher will be called radical leftism.
|
|
|
O/T Biden
Feb 25, 2021 21:06:43 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by armchairfan on Feb 25, 2021 21:06:43 GMT 1
There's no "would be" about it, proven by the result of the last GE: no matter how the Labour Party tries to dress it up ("Corbyn phobia", Brexit, the right-wing media, or perceived anti-semitism, blah blah) the party no longer represents the people for whom it was originally formed; this isn't just bad for the Party, but for Democracy itself. Whether any changes can be accomplished by a top-down re-think is questionable, and probably not desirable - any changes need to come from ordinary members without the attachment to "critical race theory" in particular, and wokeness in general. It is my fervent hope that this government appreciates the enormous responsibility and pressure which it must bear, and acts responsibly for the whole nation.... For a variety of reasons, I am not, so far, wholly impressed, but there is time to adjust. Cue whataboutery from the usual suspects, but it must be on them that the burden of making Labour electable falls....having "principles" is all fine and dandy, but flexibility, whilst maintaining one's core beliefs, is an essential prerequisite of our democratic system only with that can the Labour Party even begin to represent any significant part of the electorate. In the meantime, I agree that we, those of us on the centre-right of British politics must all do our very best, within the confines of our system, to keep the Labour Party as far away as possible from Government. Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that the threat of violence from the right is greater than the threat from the left?
The burden of making Labour electable before 2024 falls on Keir Starmer and it is probably well beyond his capabilities. Hopefully there will be someone from within the party to do so in the following parliament. Until the Neo-liberal experiment with Starmer fails there will be no change in the Labour hierarchy. Once he has gone we will rebuild and hopefully make ourselves electable again, my biggest worry is that the country will have moved so far to the right in that time that anything to the left of Thatcher will be called radical leftism.
To address your question, I must ask whether what you suggest is a verifiable "fact" or merely something gleaned from your normal reading material... As to the Labour Party, your description of Sir Keir Starmer as conducting a "neo-Liberal experiment" is, I assume, a joke, the notion in your mind being that he is insufficiently left-facing, and therefore impure...... I have deep admiration for people who can laugh at themselves.... You appear to harbour the rather touching dream that, provided that Labour moves further to the left, and continues its flirtation with CRT and wokeness, that everything in the Labour garden will be blooming for everyone's benefit..... Well, as I have said on another thread, as football fans, we are entitled to our dreams, and I do not begrudge you yours, poor misguided sap 🤣. You are, however bang-on as regards Sir Keir's limitations!
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Feb 25, 2021 22:02:17 GMT 1
Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that the threat of violence from the right is greater than the threat from the left?
The burden of making Labour electable before 2024 falls on Keir Starmer and it is probably well beyond his capabilities. Hopefully there will be someone from within the party to do so in the following parliament. Until the Neo-liberal experiment with Starmer fails there will be no change in the Labour hierarchy. Once he has gone we will rebuild and hopefully make ourselves electable again, my biggest worry is that the country will have moved so far to the right in that time that anything to the left of Thatcher will be called radical leftism.
To address your question, I must ask whether what you suggest is a verifiable "fact" or merely something gleaned from your normal reading material... As to the Labour Party, your description of Sir Keir Starmer as conducting a "neo-Liberal experiment" is, I assume, a joke, the notion in your mind being that he is insufficiently left-facing, and therefore impure...... I have deep admiration for people who can laugh at themselves.... You appear to harbour the rather touching dream that, provided that Labour moves further to the left, and continues its flirtation with CRT and wokeness, that everything in the Labour garden will be blooming for everyone's benefit..... Well, as I have said on another thread, as football fans, we are entitled to our dreams, and I do not begrudge you yours, poor misguided sap 🤣. You are, however bang-on as regards Sir Keir's limitations!
Admittedly this article is quite old and is probably a bit out of date. The important statement is in the final paragraph if you don't fancy reading the whole article.
Is Forbes too left wing for you though? The Economist is hardly the Morning Star either, but if THE magazine of money is wrong on this then I really don't know where to go next.
No I don't think that going down the route as Blair, but without the charisma, and leadership skills or the support of someone of the intellectual calibre of Gordon Brown is a route to No. 10.
I do not want Labour to move further to the left, I want them to acknowledge the existence of the left and to give them the respect they deserve. I'm not talking about the communist left or even some of the more extreme socialist worker types left. I am referring to people like me that want to see a Labour government, but not at any cost.
|
|
|
Post by armchairfan on Feb 25, 2021 23:16:22 GMT 1
To address your question, I must ask whether what you suggest is a verifiable "fact" or merely something gleaned from your normal reading material... As to the Labour Party, your description of Sir Keir Starmer as conducting a "neo-Liberal experiment" is, I assume, a joke, the notion in your mind being that he is insufficiently left-facing, and therefore impure...... I have deep admiration for people who can laugh at themselves.... You appear to harbour the rather touching dream that, provided that Labour moves further to the left, and continues its flirtation with CRT and wokeness, that everything in the Labour garden will be blooming for everyone's benefit..... Well, as I have said on another thread, as football fans, we are entitled to our dreams, and I do not begrudge you yours, poor misguided sap 🤣. You are, however bang-on as regards Sir Keir's limitations!
Admittedly this article is quite old and is probably a bit out of date. The important statement is in the final paragraph if you don't fancy reading the whole article.
Is Forbes too left wing for you though? The Economist is hardly the Morning Star either, but if THE magazine of money is wrong on this then I really don't know where to go next.
No I don't think that going down the route as Blair, but without the charisma, and leadership skills or the support of someone of the intellectual calibre of Gordon Brown is a route to No. 10.
I do not want Labour to move further to the left, I want them to acknowledge the existence of the left and to give them the respect they deserve. I'm not talking about the communist left or even some of the more extreme socialist worker types left. I am referring to people like me that want to see a Labour government, but not at any cost.
Frankly I care not whether Forbes or The Economist are right-wing, left-wing or straight down the Middle - I read neither of them, as I have more interesting ways of spending my money:the only publication which I buy is "Railway Magazine". I do not accept the premises upon which these arbitrary definitions of what exactly, or approximately, constitutes left-wing or right-wing terrorism, but I am not, in any case talking about terrorism per se.... my concern is with regard to something less easily recognised (because it isn't violent as such, nor produce a quantifiable number of deaths), and that is the obsession with CRT and the like, which has somehow gained a foothold in mainstream education, and the humanities, to the extent that to voice disapproval is met with foam-flecked irrational fury. Good fun, I suppose if one likes division, and argument masquerading as rational debate, but not for me, nor many others.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Feb 26, 2021 0:07:20 GMT 1
Not sure how we got from Harris to the Labour Party. I've read a few things over the years by Harris's dad. Interesting stuff. Not unassociated with my profile pic.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Feb 26, 2021 0:17:43 GMT 1
Not sure how we got from Harris to the Labour Party. I've read a few things over the years by Harris's dad. Interesting stuff. Not unassociated with my profile pic. excuse my ignorance if i should know who the chap is in your avatar, but i dont im presuming the photo is very old and if it is it then whoever it is deserves a mention as he looks very modern in his clothing and haircut, quite dapper i always presumed it was your grandad or someone lol, soz if im way off
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
O/T Biden
Feb 26, 2021 7:32:39 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2021 7:32:39 GMT 1
In general terms you are quite right, but to even hint at some sort of equivalence, avoids confronting the fact that this nonsense has gained much more traction in recent times, and much more than right-wing extremism ever has done in the past (Grand Wizards of the KKK in classrooms?), and therefore constitutes a "clear and PRESENT danger, as I suggested above. People are dying are they? Or offering the potential for violence?
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Feb 26, 2021 7:32:44 GMT 1
Admittedly this article is quite old and is probably a bit out of date. The important statement is in the final paragraph if you don't fancy reading the whole article.
Is Forbes too left wing for you though? The Economist is hardly the Morning Star either, but if THE magazine of money is wrong on this then I really don't know where to go next.
No I don't think that going down the route as Blair, but without the charisma, and leadership skills or the support of someone of the intellectual calibre of Gordon Brown is a route to No. 10.
I do not want Labour to move further to the left, I want them to acknowledge the existence of the left and to give them the respect they deserve. I'm not talking about the communist left or even some of the more extreme socialist worker types left. I am referring to people like me that want to see a Labour government, but not at any cost.
Frankly I care not whether Forbes or The Economist are right-wing, left-wing or straight down the Middle - I read neither of them, as I have more interesting ways of spending my money:the only publication which I buy is "Railway Magazine". I do not accept the premises upon which these arbitrary definitions of what exactly, or approximately, constitutes left-wing or right-wing terrorism, but I am not, in any case talking about terrorism per se.... my concern is with regard to something less easily recognised (because it isn't violent as such, nor produce a quantifiable number of deaths), and that is the obsession with CRT and the like, which has somehow gained a foothold in mainstream education, and the humanities, to the extent that to voice disapproval is met with foam-flecked irrational fury. Good fun, I suppose if one likes division, and argument masquerading as rational debate, but not for me, nor many others. To be honest I had to Google CRT as I had very little idea about what it was.
I can't say whether I am in favour of it or against it, because even after scanning the Wiki page about it I am still not much wiser. Some of the points I gathered were about White Privilege, mainly in the US. I know this actually exists and I have to say that it is something that is so ingrained in the system that it will never go away, especially in some southern states. Racism in US law enforcement is endemic. Over here since the 90s when the Met was called out for systemic racism it has dissipated, I wouldn't say it has gone away, but it is nowhere near as bad as it once was. On my first day in the Army one of the sergeants first words to the intake were very loudly 'at least there's no n****rs this time' so even back in '89 it was still very prevalent in the UK armed forces.
I don't believe in forcing people to do anything, if someone wants to be a racist, homophobic, sexist, etc in their own head that's fine. We haven't reached the realms of thought police just yet. Should that person be able to voice those thoughts without consequence or kick back? No, and that is why people like Katie Hopkins, Lawrence Fox, Tommy Robinson, etc are not being invited to speak at universities or given slots on TV to spout their hatred. You may calling it de platforming, I just call it not inviting bigots to speak to large audiences.
If not accepting hate speech or white privilege or racists in law enforcement is what the basis of CRT is can you tell me what is so wrong? I may have got the wrong end of the stick and I might be completely wrong about what CRT is and if so I am more that willing to read your own views on it.
Personally I am what you would call a liberal (with a small l) as well as a democratic socialist, so fairness is quite a big thing for me and if someone is being treated unfairly for the colour of their skin, their gender, their sexual orientation or their religion (or lack thereof) I want to see that treatment end and I certainly don't want to see a world where these things are the accepted norm. Debate is one thing and I love a good argument as much as the next man, but once it becomes an attack on someones difference to you it is no longer a debate.
Life is too short to be wasting it fighting against people that might be different or have different views and values. Surely humanity is better than that in the 21st century.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2021 7:37:59 GMT 1
Frankly I care not whether Forbes or The Economist are right-wing, left-wing or straight down the Middle - I read neither of them, as I have more interesting ways of spending my money:the only publication which I buy is "Railway Magazine". I do not accept the premises upon which these arbitrary definitions of what exactly, or approximately, constitutes left-wing or right-wing terrorism, but I am not, in any case talking about terrorism per se.... my concern is with regard to something less easily recognised (because it isn't violent as such, nor produce a quantifiable number of deaths), and that is the obsession with CRT and the like, which has somehow gained a foothold in mainstream education, and the humanities, to the extent that to voice disapproval is met with foam-flecked irrational fury. Good fun, I suppose if one likes division, and argument masquerading as rational debate, but not for me, nor many others. To be honest I had to Google CRT as I had very little idea about what it was.
I can't say whether I am in favour of it or against it, because even after scanning the Wiki page about it I am still not much wiser. Some of the points I gathered were about White Privilege, mainly in the US. I know this actually exists and I have to say that it is something that is so ingrained in the system that it will never go away, especially in some southern states. Racism in US law enforcement is endemic. Over here since the 90s when the Met was called out for systemic racism it has dissipated, I wouldn't say it has gone away, but it is nowhere near as bad as it once was. On my first day in the Army one of the sergeants first words to the intake were very loudly 'at least there's no n****rs this time' so even back in '89 it was still very prevalent in the UK armed forces.
I don't believe in forcing people to do anything, if someone wants to be a racist, homophobic, sexist, etc in their own head that's fine. We haven't reached the realms of thought police just yet. Should that person be able to voice those thoughts without consequence or kick back? No, and that is why people like Katie Hopkins, Lawrence Fox, Tommy Robinson, etc are not being invited to speak at universities or given slots on TV to spout their hatred. You may calling it de platforming, I just call it not inviting bigots to speak to large audiences.
If not accepting hate speech or white privilege or racists in law enforcement is what the basis of CRT is can you tell me what is so wrong? I may have got the wrong end of the stick and I might be completely wrong about what CRT is and if so I am more that willing to read your own views on it.
Personally I am what you would call a liberal (with a small l) as well as a democratic socialist, so fairness is quite a big thing for me and if someone is being treated unfairly for the colour of their skin, their gender, their sexual orientation or their religion (or lack thereof) I want to see that treatment end and I certainly don't want to see a world where these things are the accepted norm. Debate is one thing and I love a good argument as much as the next man, but once it becomes an attack on someones difference to you it is no longer a debate.
Life is too short to be wasting it fighting against people that might be different or have different views and values. Surely humanity is better than that in the 21st century.
CRT is a way to address historical racism and challenge existing power structures that are perceived to prevent racial equality. Like any theory some people take it to the extreme and which means some people get their knickers in a twist about it. Meanwhile, Harris is still the victim of racism and racial tropes.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Feb 26, 2021 7:41:35 GMT 1
To be honest I had to Google CRT as I had very little idea about what it was.
I can't say whether I am in favour of it or against it, because even after scanning the Wiki page about it I am still not much wiser. Some of the points I gathered were about White Privilege, mainly in the US. I know this actually exists and I have to say that it is something that is so ingrained in the system that it will never go away, especially in some southern states. Racism in US law enforcement is endemic. Over here since the 90s when the Met was called out for systemic racism it has dissipated, I wouldn't say it has gone away, but it is nowhere near as bad as it once was. On my first day in the Army one of the sergeants first words to the intake were very loudly 'at least there's no n****rs this time' so even back in '89 it was still very prevalent in the UK armed forces.
I don't believe in forcing people to do anything, if someone wants to be a racist, homophobic, sexist, etc in their own head that's fine. We haven't reached the realms of thought police just yet. Should that person be able to voice those thoughts without consequence or kick back? No, and that is why people like Katie Hopkins, Lawrence Fox, Tommy Robinson, etc are not being invited to speak at universities or given slots on TV to spout their hatred. You may calling it de platforming, I just call it not inviting bigots to speak to large audiences.
If not accepting hate speech or white privilege or racists in law enforcement is what the basis of CRT is can you tell me what is so wrong? I may have got the wrong end of the stick and I might be completely wrong about what CRT is and if so I am more that willing to read your own views on it.
Personally I am what you would call a liberal (with a small l) as well as a democratic socialist, so fairness is quite a big thing for me and if someone is being treated unfairly for the colour of their skin, their gender, their sexual orientation or their religion (or lack thereof) I want to see that treatment end and I certainly don't want to see a world where these things are the accepted norm. Debate is one thing and I love a good argument as much as the next man, but once it becomes an attack on someones difference to you it is no longer a debate.
Life is too short to be wasting it fighting against people that might be different or have different views and values. Surely humanity is better than that in the 21st century.
CRT is a way to address historical racism and challenge existing power structures that are perceived to prevent racial equality. Like any theory some people take it to the extreme and which means some people get their knickers in a twist about it. Meanwhile, Harris is still the victim of racism and racial tropes. Cheers Nick. So much more concise than my post
|
|