The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[banjodeano]

Do you think it’s wrong that in Corbyn’s official statement following Castro’s death, he called him a champion of social justice, even though Castro executed people for being gay?

 

You can’t sensibly deny he wrote those words just because you may disagree with them - indeed the fact you are so fervently trying to deny it, even going to such lengths as to say you don’t believe anything unless you actually hear them say it, at least indicates you do feel it was wrong, which is something at least.

 

But we have not established he actually said those words have we? or that he actually agreed with it and put pen to paper? i have asked you for evidence and none has been forthcoming, i have read loads and loads of things what he has supposed to have said, and it turned out he never said it, or it was twisted and misconstrued to what he meant..

But for the sake of argument, i will play along with your game, lets just assume that it is true..

If he said Castro was a champion of social justice, then they are his words not mine, and i dont have to defend them, but i suppose we have to look in what context they were used, in the clip from The Independant, it states that "Jeremy Corbyn hails Fidel Castro as a ‘champion of social justice"....but then it goes on to say "The Labour leader acknowledges the ‘flaws’ in the dead Cuban leader’s revolutionary rule – but calls him a ‘huge figure of modern history"...which in that context i take to mean, he admits he did a lot of good things, but some aspects of the revolution were wrong, that he did good things and bad things..

[Robin-H]

But we have not established he actually said those words have we? or that he actually agreed with it and put pen to paper? i have asked you for evidence and none has been forthcoming, i have read loads and loads of things what he has supposed to have said, and it turned out he never said it, or it was twisted and misconstrued to what he meant..

But for the sake of argument, i will play along with your game, lets just assume that it is true..

If he said Castro was a champion of social justice, then they are his words not mine, and i dont have to defend them, but i suppose we have to look in what context they were used, in the clip from The Independant, it states that "Jeremy Corbyn hails Fidel Castro as a ‘champion of social justice"....but then it goes on to say "The Labour leader acknowledges the ‘flaws’ in the dead Cuban leader’s revolutionary rule – but calls him a ‘huge figure of modern history"...which in that context i take to mean, he admits he did a lot of good things, but some aspects of the revolution were wrong, that he did good things and bad things..

 

It was an official statement by Corbyn after Castro's death.

 

Are you claiming that he doesn't know what is written in the official statements he releases?

 

I am well aware that he said that he was a flawed figure - I have quoted that, and provided links to articles/statements where that is written. He also said that despite being flawed, he was a champion of social justice, that's what I am taking issue with.

[banjodeano]

It was an official statement by Corbyn after Castro's death.

 

Are you claiming that he doesn't know what is written in the official statements he releases?

 

I am well aware that he said that he was a flawed figure - I have quoted that, and provided links to articles/statements where that is written. He also said that despite being flawed, he was a champion of social justice, that's what I am taking issue with.

 

do you not understand what i have written?

I thought i had written a good answer to you and it was quite clear?

i am struggling to understand what you want me to say to you.

[Robin-H]

do you not understand what i have written?

I thought i had written a good answer to you and it was quite clear?

i am struggling to understand what you want me to say to you.

 

You seem to be maintaining this rather preposterous viewpoint that Corbyn's official statements aren't his because he doesn't orate them. You keep asking for evidence that he either verbalised his statement, or there is some kind of evidence that he actually put 'pen to paper' himself when writing his statement - a video perhaps?

 

This to me is a rather startling position to take. Do you believe that the statements from Corbyn are manipulated to say things he never wrote before being published, and Corbyn never thinks to mention that? Never says 'Hey, I never said that about Castro! My official statement has been doctored!' Instead, he just shrugs his shoulders?

 

I want you to say that you agree that the official statements put out by Corbyn are Corbyn's words, either written directly by him (one would hope), or at the very least agreed by him.

 

The rest of your comment is moot. Nobody has claimed that Corbyn didn't view Castro as a 'flawed figure' so I don't know what you're trying to argue. I still think it is very clumsy however to call someone a 'champion of social justice' when they were so monumentally flawed on areas of social justice.

Edited March 1, 2018 by Robin-H

[banjodeano]

You seem to be maintaining this rather preposterous viewpoint that Corbyn's official statements aren't his because he doesn't orate them. You keep asking for evidence that he either verbalised his statement, or there is some kind of evidence that he actually put 'pen to paper' himself when writing his statement - a video perhaps?

 

This to me is a rather startling position to take. Do you believe that the statements from Corbyn are manipulated to say things he never wrote before being published, and Corbyn never thinks to mention that? Never says 'Hey, I never said that about Castro! My official statement has been doctored!' Instead, he just shrugs his shoulders?

 

I want you to say that you agree that the official statements put out by Corbyn are Corbyn's words, either written directly by him (one would hope), or at the very least agreed by him.

 

The rest of your comment is moot. Nobody has claimed that Corbyn didn't view Castro as a 'flawed figure' so I don't know what you're trying to argue. I still think it is very clumsy however to call someone a 'champion of social justice' when they were so monumentally flawed on areas of social justice.

yeah okay Robin,

i thought i gave you a good explanation what my views were in my answer, and also what i thought Corbyns views were, i am sorry if thats not enough for you, but i am not prepared to waste any more energy on this point

[Robin-H]

yeah okay Robin,

i thought i gave you a good explanation what my views were in my answer, and also what i thought Corbyns views were, i am sorry if thats not enough for you, but i am not prepared to waste any more energy on this point

 

I'm perfectly content with your answer regarding what your views on Corbyn's actual statement are, and what you think Corbyn's views are. We can disagree, but that's perfectly fine, we are discussing opinion.

 

My problem was with you trying to argue that Corbyn's official statements were somehow manipulated before they were published, and that they weren't his words. That's conspiracy theory territory, and I think it's wise that you don't waste any more energy on it.

[alchresearch]

My problem was with you trying to argue that Corbyn's official statements were somehow manipulated before they were published, and that they weren't his words. That's conspiracy theory territory, and I think it's wise that you don't waste any more energy on it.

 

That's the trouble with his "followers", they're blind to any criticism of the man and treating him like some sort of God or saviour. And if they don't like anything said or written its some sort of media conspiracy or fake news against him from "The Establishment".

[banjodeano]

I'm perfectly content with your answer regarding what your views on Corbyn's actual statement are, and what you think Corbyn's views are. We can disagree, but that's perfectly fine, we are discussing opinion.

 

My problem was with you trying to argue that Corbyn's official statements were somehow manipulated before they were published, and that they weren't his words. That's conspiracy theory territory, and I think it's wise that you don't waste any more energy on it.

 

Ok, i am going to bite...

so your original argument has now changed, you couldnt win/prove that one, so you are now moving onto another one?

Ok, lets go along that route then if you wish...

now your argument is not with what was said, but whether i believe the statements that Corbyn has supposed to have made?

which are the official statements of which you speak? you provided a link from Labourlist? is that the official statement to which you refer?

in my opinion Labourlist has no loyalty to Corbyn, they are from the Blairite fraction of the party, so nope, i dont believe anything that they print, now if it was from the actual Labour Party, of course i would believe that.

please state which individual statements you refer to and i will answer whether i believe its a true account of what he said or not..

 

---------- Post added 01-03-2018 at 13:12 ----------

 

That's the trouble with his "followers", they're blind to any criticism of the man and treating him like some sort of God or saviour. And if they don't like anything said or written its some sort of media conspiracy or fake news against him from "The Establishment".

 

it usually is though..

[melthebell]

That's the trouble with his "followers", they're blind to any criticism of the man and treating him like some sort of God or saviour. And if they don't like anything said or written its some sort of media conspiracy or fake news against him from "The Establishment".

Tbh looking from the outside, im neither a labour voter or supporter or a fan of the man there HAS been a lot of negative press in the papers about him and labour, almost all press was negative about him and labour during the last election, whereas there was a barely a mention of negativity over May and the tories

[Jonny5]

Tbh looking from the outside, im neither a labour voter or supporter or a fan of the man there HAS been a lot of negative press in the papers about him and labour, almost all press was negative about him and labour during the last election, whereas there was a barely a mention of negativity over May and the tories

The press definitely has a Tory bias.

 

That doesn't excuse some of the conspiracy theory nonsense that Labour activists are coming out with And nor does it excuse their treatment of Corbyn as some untouchable perfect diety.

 

It's very unhealthy. In fact it's how every single dictator in history has come to power.