[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
BADASSES

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 65592)
Message
File  []
close
adc567779411beadc50eaab68b8fccbd78-7-jkrowling.rsq.jpg
655926559265592
>> No. 65592 YubYub
8th June 2020
Monday 9:15 am
65592 spacer
Nobody:

J.K. Rowling: I haven't pissed off my fan base in a while. He's my views on trannies...
96 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> No. 65837 Samefag
28th June 2020
Sunday 7:38 am
65837 spacer

JK Rowling is Blairite.jpg
658376583765837
J.K. Rowling's political opinions have always given the impression of being precisely calculated to alienate everyone on the planet.
>> No. 65839 Ambulancelad
28th June 2020
Sunday 9:59 am
65839 spacer
>>65837

Rebranding of pragmatic/centre left as Blairites and using it as a pejorative with heavy undertones of 'traitor' is the reason the Labour party can't win an election
>> No. 65840 Are Moaty
28th June 2020
Sunday 10:28 am
65840 spacer
>>65839

Yes, and it works just as effectively as rebranding leftist MPs with strong values and grassroots support as anti-semites.

Neither side can claim the moral high ground when they both pull exactly the same shit.
>> No. 65845 Are Moaty
28th June 2020
Sunday 11:57 am
65845 spacer
>>65840
>rebranding leftist MPs with strong values and grassroots support as anti-semites

No one was rebranding them apart from "the you know whos". Which either means they had a point, or that they really do control everything.
>> No. 65846 YubYub
28th June 2020
Sunday 12:12 pm
65846 spacer
>>65845

Except that's not true.
>> No. 65847 YubYub
28th June 2020
Sunday 12:36 pm
65847 spacer
>>65846


oh well, 'no smoke without fire' then I guess.
>> No. 65849 Moralfag
28th June 2020
Sunday 2:20 pm
65849 spacer
>>65847

More like no smoke without a fire that was ignored under a safe centrist leader and then weaponised when it became politically expedient and subsequently buried even when a highly detailed report is published demonstrating that to be the case.

The real losers here are Jews who have had their voice silenced my a zionist lobby that would have you believe Jews are a single monolithic group. Using them as pawns in this game is far worse than the supposed antisemitism of the far left. But of course you know that, you just don't care, because the media is on your side.

You are David baddiel and I claim my five pounds. If I can pry it from your hands that is.
>> No. 65850 Anonymous
28th June 2020
Sunday 2:32 pm
65850 spacer
>>65849

As a famous tv comedian I resent the implication that I am any less qualified than a trained professional.
>> No. 65854 Ambulancelad
28th June 2020
Sunday 3:58 pm
65854 spacer
>>65840

>YES, AND IT WORKS JUST AS EFFECTIVELY AS REBRANDING LEFTIST MPS WITH STRONG VALUES AND GRASSROOTS SUPPORT AS ANTI-SEMITES.

If you don't want to be branded as an anti-semite, then don't say anti-semitic things. It's really that easy.
>> No. 65855 R4GE
28th June 2020
Sunday 4:30 pm
65855 spacer
>>65839
Nobody wants what Blairites are selling. If the public liked Blairism then nobody would have a good reason for shying away from the label "Blairite".
The problem with the ""pragmatic"" ""centre left"" is that they aren't pragmatic in terms of the year 2015, 2017, 2019 or 2020 for that matter. They're pragmatic only in the terms of 1997. They have no answers to the problems of the here-and-now because they've been too busy fighting to kill the wrong answers from the Labour left. The country needs a revolution (even if just a pragmatic one) and all that Blairites can offer is triangulation. Forget traitors to the Labour party, Blairites are practically traitors to the Blairism of the 90s.

If you're a young man, I say emigrate.
>> No. 65856 Billbob
28th June 2020
Sunday 4:38 pm
65856 spacer
>>65855
Where to?
>> No. 65857 Billbob
28th June 2020
Sunday 4:58 pm
65857 spacer
>>65855

>If the public liked Blairism then nobody would have a good reason for shying away from the label "Blairite".

The only people who have a problem with the term "Blairite" is the left of the Labour party. Starmer is a pragmatic centre-leftist, which is why he's going to win the next General election; unsurprisingly, every general election in modern history has been won by the candidate closest to the centre of the contemporary zeitgeist.
>> No. 65858 YubYub
28th June 2020
Sunday 5:11 pm
65858 spacer
>>65856
The Seychelles

>>65857
If the public are so big on self-identified Blairites, why doesn't Starmer declare himself one?
>every general election in modern history has been won by the candidate closest to the centre of the contemporary zeitgeist.
and what if the contemporary zeitgeist is inimical to "pragmatic centre leftism"? Labour would've been bang on the zeitgeist if it had stood on the 2019 Tory manifesto under a different leader, but if you described that manifesto to a Blairite MP they'd ask why you're reading them a slightly racist Bennite wank-fic about spending hikes and leaving Europe.
>> No. 65861 YubYub
28th June 2020
Sunday 7:57 pm
65861 spacer
>>65857

Nah mate, you've got it the wrong way round. associating yourself with blair is like openly admitting you're a war criminal, and the only people who don't have a problem with it are the kind of mildly sociopathic top lads who thought change UK was going to go anywhere.

his legacy is a long and largely pointless war, not drastically reducing homelessness or anything else positive he actually achieved in office.
>> No. 65862 YubYub
28th June 2020
Sunday 11:03 pm
65862 spacer
>>65861

Well this is the inductive reasoning that is the problem in the labour party to them
centre left = blairite
blairite = in favour of war crimes

They really have only themselves to blame for losing elections.
>> No. 65863 Anonymous
28th June 2020
Sunday 11:59 pm
65863 spacer
>>65862

No, you just appear to be playing a weird kind of victim card.

nobody wants to be called a blairite. reasonable centre-left politicians take pains not to be labelled a blairite. if they get called a blairite anyway, it's probably a sign they've done something to earn that label. if they're reasonable centre-left politicians, they just get called centre ground, moderate, or whatever.

your assertion was that only the far left dislike the idea of being a blairite, when that's clearly wrong, everyone dislikes being called a blairite. it's almost as if you don't really understand what it means.
>> No. 65864 Samefag
29th June 2020
Monday 12:09 am
65864 spacer
>>65863
>everyone dislikes being called a blairite. it's almost as if you don't really understand what it means.


Run along stuck up child. Most of us were both alive and of voting age during new labour. And remember the 10 years people kept voting for him as prime minister, and how people still continued voting for him after the Iraq and Svalbard wars had started.


Terribly mysterious how he remained popular for so long in direct contradiction to everything you are saying like you are spewing utter drivel of a student who looked at the cover of a political text book once.
>> No. 65865 Crabkiller
29th June 2020
Monday 1:09 am
65865 spacer
>>65864

and, indeed, things change. lots has changed in the thirteen fucking years since he was prime minister. it's nice of you to prove that lad right when he said your lot are stuck in the past, though.

think of it this way- how many tories are comfortable with being called a thatcherite? this doesn't even have anything to do with political allegiance, it's simple pr. identifying strongly with a highly polarising figure from the past hurts your marketability in the here and now.
>> No. 65866 Auntiefucker
29th June 2020
Monday 1:45 am
65866 spacer
>>65864

>RUN ALONG STUCK UP CHILD.

This is the sort of thing that puts people off voting labour.
>> No. 65867 Crabkiller
29th June 2020
Monday 3:23 am
65867 spacer
>>65866

If someone calling them a stuck up child on an anonymous image board is enough to put them off voting for a political party. Then they probably shouldn't have the right to vote.
>> No. 65868 Moralfag
29th June 2020
Monday 6:17 am
65868 spacer
>>65864
Does it come as a shock to you that people can vote for candidates they don't actually like?
Blair was ridiculously popular in 1997. By 2005 he was not, but he won anyway because really: you're going to make Michael Howard PM instead? Pull the other one.
>> No. 65869 Billbob
29th June 2020
Monday 10:03 am
65869 spacer
>>65868

If that were true you wouldn't expect labour to win so decisively you would expect some sort of minority government or coalition. Apparently he was still more popular then than every labour candidate since compared to their opponent.

Honestly the labour voters are ashamed they were winning. When the party loses you can sneer all day long at who's in power, actually running the country doesn't allow for that.
>> No. 65870 Anonymous
29th June 2020
Monday 10:07 am
65870 spacer
>>65869
>Honestly the labour voters are ashamed they were winning. When the party loses you can sneer all day long at who's in power, actually running the country doesn't allow for that.

This is bad and you should feel bad.
>> No. 65871 Samefag
29th June 2020
Monday 10:50 am
65871 spacer
>>65867

The majority of people who voted conservative at the last election shouldn't have suffrage. Voting against your own interests in such a concise and direct manner should be seen as proof of their incompetency.
>> No. 65872 Paedofag
29th June 2020
Monday 10:51 am
65872 spacer
>>65871
Why is voting Labour in their interests?
>> No. 65873 Billbob
29th June 2020
Monday 10:54 am
65873 spacer
>>65872

Because they're poor.
>> No. 65874 Paedofag
29th June 2020
Monday 10:55 am
65874 spacer
>>65873
Labour wants to keep them poor so they'll keep voting Labour.
>> No. 65875 YubYub
29th June 2020
Monday 10:56 am
65875 spacer
>>65874

Surely they want to keep them dependent on free money?
>> No. 65876 Anonymous
29th June 2020
Monday 10:57 am
65876 spacer
>>65871

FASCIST
>> No. 65877 Crabkiller
29th June 2020
Monday 10:59 am
65877 spacer
>>65876

Hag
>> No. 65878 Samefag
29th June 2020
Monday 10:59 am
65878 spacer
>>65876

killing tories isn't facist, it's humanitarian.
>> No. 65879 Crabkiller
29th June 2020
Monday 12:26 pm
65879 spacer
>>65878
Yeah, who needs taxpaying professionals.
>> No. 65880 Samefag
29th June 2020
Monday 1:15 pm
65880 spacer
>>65879

Fact : no labour voter has ever had a job. The clue is in the name.
>> No. 65881 Moralfag
29th June 2020
Monday 2:08 pm
65881 spacer
>>65869
Labour's 2005 victory was off the back of the lowest percentage of the popular vote seen by any majority government in the history of this country. If you really want to look at the numbers, Theresa May was only down 1% on Blair's 1997 win in 2017 and she came back without a majority. Elections are complicated things, but you'd much rather simplify them down to an opinion poll on one man so that you can pretend that Blair was much more impressive than he was. You chide Labour voters for being ashamed of the man who won them 3 elections, but you're unwilling to think critically about why the general public tell pollsters loathe and detest a man they elected to office 3 times. If anything makes it shameful to recognise the achievements of Blair, it's backwards looking sycophants like you.
>> No. 65882 Searchfag
29th June 2020
Monday 2:25 pm
65882 spacer
>>65881

That's actually a damning indictment of Teresa May, as the Conservatives have been redrawing constituency boundaries since 2010 to ensure victory and stop Labour ever getting another majority and her campaign returned a hung parliament.
>> No. 65883 R4GE
29th June 2020
Monday 2:29 pm
65883 spacer
>>65882
She's the Tory equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn.
>> No. 65884 Billbob
29th June 2020
Monday 3:10 pm
65884 spacer
>>65883
Other than her failure, not really. The only serious political conviction she's had in her life is that she should be prime minister. The 2017 Conservative manifesto was a moderate, triangulating document, not a Thatcherite version of the longest suicide note in history. (Even if they did such a bad job explaining their moderate policies that they wound up making it sound like a suicide note.)
>> No. 65885 Are Moaty
29th June 2020
Monday 3:34 pm
65885 spacer
>>65884
I think the dementia tax was probably the key policy that lost May her majority. How does one explain that one, then?
>> No. 65886 R4GE
29th June 2020
Monday 3:41 pm
65886 spacer
>>65885
She out Corbyned Corbyn. She thought Jeremy Corbyn was doing such a Corbyn of things that she could throw in a few deeply unpopular policies because victory was assured. She Corbyned too far and ended up Corbyning herself against Corbyn.
>> No. 65887 Moralfag
29th June 2020
Monday 5:01 pm
65887 spacer
>>65886
I agreed that the state should requisition granny's home to pay for her dementia care though. A superb policy poorly sold.

Corbyn going after the Kulaks was old hat.
>> No. 65888 Moralfag
29th June 2020
Monday 6:10 pm
65888 spacer
>>65885
The "dementia tax" would actually have left people much better off than they are under the current system. The Conservatives utterly cocked up communicating it in the sort of way that would stretch credulity if you saw it in fiction.
The policy would've let people keep their homes for their lifetimes and made sure that you'd always be left with at least £100,000 no matter the cost of your care. Corbyn got this backwards in one speech, saying the proposal was to only cover the first £100,000 of care costs. Later, May was asked by a member of the public how they could be sure their care costs wouldn't lead them to bankruptcy: The answer was easy: "because the government will let you keep at least £100,000." May fumbled in a failed attempt to explain the policy in detail, rather than giving that clear answer.

That's not to say it's a good policy, but the miscommunication (and the things that possibly stemmed from it, such as the subsequent U-Turn rendering the already tedious "strong and stable" a complete joke.) is comedy gold.
>> No. 65895 Ambulancelad
1st July 2020
Wednesday 9:31 am
65895 spacer
>>65888
Or is that to say that Corbyn used the time honoured tactic of completely misrepresenting political opposition to make them sound like nutters in order to derail them? No politician's above using tricks.
>> No. 65897 R4GE
1st July 2020
Wednesday 9:36 am
65897 spacer
>>65895

Can't it be both?
>> No. 65988 Anonymous
9th July 2020
Thursday 1:34 pm
65988 spacer
We've got a CV from a ftm person. However, it looks like they've transitioned to far and they've gone from looking like a girl to looking like a boy to looking like a boy with downs syndrome. Didn't even know that was possible. I've never seen such a downy face in a non-downy person.
>> No. 65993 Auntiefucker
9th July 2020
Thursday 5:01 pm
65993 spacer
>>65988

They might have looked downy as a girl too.
>> No. 65994 Auntiefucker
9th July 2020
Thursday 5:10 pm
65994 spacer
>>65993
I looked through their old pictures, part of my recruitment filter is looking them up online to gauge whether that suggests they're a twat, and they weren't that fit as a full on girl.

They looked best, to me at least, in the pictures before taking the male hormones where they were dressed as a boy with androgynous hair but mixing it up with mascara and other makeup on.
>> No. 65995 Ambulancelad
9th July 2020
Thursday 6:37 pm
65995 spacer
>>65994

>part of my recruitment filter is looking them up online to gauge whether that suggests they're a twat

please consider making an appointment with dignitas.
>> No. 65996 Are Moaty
9th July 2020
Thursday 6:58 pm
65996 spacer
>>65994

Would I fail such an application if I had no online presence?

I want to understand how the modern panopticon opperates, and my chances of survival in the near future.
>> No. 65998 Billbob
9th July 2020
Thursday 7:29 pm
65998 spacer
>>65994
Where do you work, because that's illegal.
>> No. 65999 Anonymous
9th July 2020
Thursday 7:43 pm
65999 spacer
>>65996
Not at all. The only times I've looked up someone online and decided not to proceed to interview is when they're too much of a lad.

>>65998
That's be telling.

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password