[UK] General Election 2017 Superthread

[Vassenor]

Try actually quoting the person you are addressing.

It is a step in showing how we will not tolerate a symbol of their ideologies, in the same way that Germany banned Nazi symbolism and various Central and Eastern European countries banned communist symbols in their respective denazification and decommunization efforts.

Germany banned military uniforms? This is the first I've heard of it.

Weren't the various DDR uniforms just Wehrmacht uniforms with Russian helmets, Kalashnikovs and all the Swastikas filed off?

[Roosevetania]

Accoording to the poll, a Labour-Lib Dem-SNP-Green coalition could form a coalition on NSG!

If only NSG polls were real...

[Napkiraly]

Accoording to the poll, a Labour-Lib Dem-SNP-Green coalition could form a coalition on NSG!

If only NSG polls were real...

Thank God they aren't.

[Angleter]

Accoording to the poll, a Labour-Lib Dem-SNP-Green coalition could form a coalition on NSG!

If only NSG polls were real...

Thank God they aren't.

On the other hand, 'Tories Ahead on NSG' is right up there as far as disastrous poll results for Labour go.

[Ifreann]

Germany banned military uniforms? This is the first I've heard of it.

...

I'm seriously trying to figure out how you went through the mental gymnastics necessary to actually post that.

Military uniforms are to Nazis as burkas are to Muslims, it's pretty simple.

[New Serrland]

There's a few they could lose (Bath, Twickenham, Kingston and Surbiton, Oxford West and Abingdon), but I don't expect anything on the scale of Richmond. Or at least I'd like to think not, since my seat is pretty much identical in terms of Remain vote and Tory lead over the LibDems. When Zac lost, he was a) a Brexiteer, b) running in a by-election that nobody asked for, and c) running without his party. Only a) applies to Zac now, and none of them apply to most Tories in similar seats.

Could get new meaning to:

[...]
Highbury bore me. Richmond and Kew
Undid me. By Richmond I raised my knees
Supine on the floor of a narrow canoe.

My feet are at Moorgate, and my heart
Under my feet. After the event
He wept. He promised a ‘new start.’
I made no comment. What should I resent?

[Napkiraly]

...

I'm seriously trying to figure out how you went through the mental gymnastics necessary to actually post that.

Military uniforms are to Nazis as burkas are to Muslims, it's pretty simple.

Right I think we are done.

[Salandriagado]

...

I'm seriously trying to figure out how you went through the mental gymnastics necessary to actually post that.

They did ban the nice looking uniforms tho.

Hey, they aren't the country that managed to produce sofa camo.

[Atlanticatia]

May is abhorrent as well, probably moreso.

But I was commenting on an article. Theresa May being homophobic doesn't make Tim Farron's position any more acceptable. It isn't liberal to waver on the question of homosexuality being a sin, there is no correct answer other than 'no, homosexuality is not a sin and should be accepted by every person socially and legally'.

Imagine being a bullied LGBT teenager, for example, and hearing that a leading national politician (who leads a party meant to fight for their rights) be unsure on whether or not LGBT rights is a sin. If we allow Tim Farron to have that public position without challenging it, then it legitimises all the people who personally hold that position across Britain. If the leader of the Liberal Democrats can be personally homophobic, why not the neighbour, teacher, parent, etc?

Legal rights are only one small part of equality. Much of equality is actually about changing social attitudes and making bigoted points of view unacceptable to hold. Take 2nd-wave feminism for example: it wasn't just about banning discrimination, it was also (importantly) about making it unacceptable to view women as subordinate or unfit for professional careers, etc. Making it socially unacceptable to make unwanted sexual advances, to say as a politician that you think women belong in the home, etc.

If he thinks LGBT rights is a sin why does he keep voting in favour of them?

Thanks for ignoring my point. I said that being pro-LGBT does not just mean supporting LGBT rights. Refusing to say gay sex is not a sin when you have a national platform is not conducive to LGBT social equality - I don't care if it's a 'religious' standpoint.

[Frank Zipper]

Well it is definitely going to be an election about the nature of Brexit. May's own fault.

[Frank Zipper]

Accoording to the poll, a Labour-Lib Dem-SNP-Green coalition could form a coalition on NSG!

If only NSG polls were real...

I wonder if we looked back at old NSG election thread polls, how accurate would they be? Not at all would be my guess.

[Vassenor]

If he thinks LGBT rights is a sin why does he keep voting in favour of them?

Thanks for ignoring my point. I said that being pro-LGBT does not just mean supporting LGBT rights. Refusing to say gay sex is not a sin when you have a national platform is not conducive to LGBT social equality - I don't care if it's a 'religious' standpoint.

Well excuse me for considering voting record to be more credible than media soundbites.

Tim Farron generally voted for equal gay rights

Tim Farron almost always voted for allowing marriage between two people of same sex

[Old Tyrannia]

If he thinks LGBT rights is a sin why does he keep voting in favour of them?

Thanks for ignoring my point. I said that being pro-LGBT does not just mean supporting LGBT rights. Refusing to say gay sex is not a sin when you have a national platform is not conducive to LGBT social equality - I don't care if it's a 'religious' standpoint.

It's good to know that your version of liberalism doesn't allow people to hold religious views at odds with your political ideology. Very tolerant of you.

[CoraSpia]

If he thinks LGBT rights is a sin why does he keep voting in favour of them?

Thanks for ignoring my point. I said that being pro-LGBT does not just mean supporting LGBT rights. Refusing to say gay sex is not a sin when you have a national platform is not conducive to LGBT social equality - I don't care if it's a 'religious' standpoint.

Personally I have no problem with him not wanting to endorse lgbt relationships. If he has his religious views, that's his right; as long as he doesn't let them impact upon the rights of lgbt people, then fair play. And his voting record very clearly shows that he doesn't.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Thanks for ignoring my point. I said that being pro-LGBT does not just mean supporting LGBT rights. Refusing to say gay sex is not a sin when you have a national platform is not conducive to LGBT social equality - I don't care if it's a 'religious' standpoint.

It's good to know that your version of liberalism doesn't allow people to hold religious views at odds with your political ideology. Very tolerant of you.

Having the right to hold those views is not the same as the right to have those views go unchallenged. It's perfectly reasonable for a voter to want to know if the leader of a party--that's asking for their vote--holds views that they might find abhorrent.

Put it another way, because it's still somewhat socially acceptable to believe same-sex unions are wrong. If he believed that interracial unions were wrong (but did not support legislating against them) would you consider it unreasonable for a voter (particularly someone in an interracial relationship) to judge him by that? To perhaps decide that they don't want such a person holding a high-profile position in the Government or Opposition, and thus won't help them get there? In the case of those in his constituency, might they reasonably not want to be represented by (and to have to take any issues they have to) someone who believes that their children are abominations or products of evil or some such?

[Olivaero]

If he thinks LGBT rights is a sin why does he keep voting in favour of them?

Thanks for ignoring my point. I said that being pro-LGBT does not just mean supporting LGBT rights. Refusing to say gay sex is not a sin when you have a national platform is not conducive to LGBT social equality - I don't care if it's a 'religious' standpoint.

"Sin" only has religious meaning. It's a religious word, only used in religious context. In fact if anything it shows an even greater commitment to liberalism that you can put aside your personal views and support whichever position gives people the most freedom. And I'm talking as some one who was an LGBT teen who was bullied and still occasionally get called a faggot and not in a nice way. "Changing social attitudes" is and always has been a red herring, it's what makes people think the left is authoritarian and there's no way it can be implemented by the government in a way that isn't authoritarian. Do I like suffering abuse occasionally? no. But it wouldn't go away if we could get every religious person in the world to say being gay isn't a sin. People are aggressively homophobic because they are repulsed by the different, not because they hold religious feelings.

[Souseiseki]

http://newsthump.com/2017/04/25/britain ... -election/

satire continues to struggle against reality

[Dooom35796821595]

It's shameful that May is taking advantage of the disarray Labour's in to seize power. Also, Corbyn is really stupid for supporting this.

But anyway, if I lived in the UK I would be going door-to-door for Labour. I really love Corbyn. A Labour-SNP-Lib Dem coalition would be my dream, but...

It's shameful that Overlord May is using basic political strategy against an inept "opposition"? (I don't think there is a real opposition in parliment at the moment.)

Corbin is unelectable, the SNP are ultranationalists and the Lib Dems have yet to make up for their past crimes. So guess why the Tories are so popular.

[Bressen]

http://newsthump.com/2017/04/25/britain-to-experience-first-entirely-policy-free-election/

satire continues to struggle against reality

"A spokesman for the Conservative party told us that their electoral strategy was to say nothing at all and just point silently point at Jeremy Corbyn whilst their opponents destroy themselves without any help."

This would (and will) work a lot better than campaigning on cutting pensions and increasing taxes.

[Angleter]

Thanks for ignoring my point. I said that being pro-LGBT does not just mean supporting LGBT rights. Refusing to say gay sex is not a sin when you have a national platform is not conducive to LGBT social equality - I don't care if it's a 'religious' standpoint.

It's good to know that your version of liberalism doesn't allow people to hold religious views at odds with your political ideology. Very tolerant of you.

We must protect our British Values from the twin spectres of Popery and Dissent, no matter how much their adherents protest they will uphold our Liberties. Superstition must not be tolerated in the corridors of power. Anyone seeking high office must pass a Test disavowing False Romanist Doctrine, or they must be considered unsuitable. It's 1717, people.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

No foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.

I'm looking at you, ECHR.

[Ifreann]

No foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.

I'm looking at you, ECHR.

Won't you have to give up your Middle Eastern religion too?

[The Wolfiad]

Germany banned military uniforms? This is the first I've heard of it.

...

I'm seriously trying to figure out how you went through the mental gymnastics necessary to actually post that.

There are those who are just the sort of people who would use 'I know you are but what am I?' as a comeback and then proclaim victory in a debate. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Ifreann responded 'I know you are but what am I?' whilst Vassenor will ask me to source this claim .

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

No foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.

I'm looking at you, ECHR.

Won't you have to give up your Middle Eastern religion too?

I don't have one.

[Souseiseki]

...

I'm seriously trying to figure out how you went through the mental gymnastics necessary to actually post that.

There are those who are just the sort of people who would use 'I know you are but what am I?' as a comeback and then proclaim victory in a debate. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Ifreann responded 'I know you are but what am I?' whilst Vassenor will ask me to source this claim .

>not preceding all of yours posts with a 1500 word essay on the nature of knowledge itself

disappointing

No foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.

I'm looking at you, ECHR.

but the ECHR is good tho