|
What is the best flav... you all know what this question is: This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Labour |
|
907 | 49.92% |
| Theresa May Team (Conservative) |
|
48 | 2.64% |
| Liberal Democrats |
|
31 | 1.71% |
| UKIP |
|
13 | 0.72% |
| Plaid Cymru |
|
25 | 1.38% |
| Green |
|
22 | 1.21% |
| Scottish Socialist Party |
|
12 | 0.66% |
| Scottish Conservative Party |
|
1 | 0.06% |
| Scottish National Party |
|
59 | 3.25% |
| Some Kind of Irish Unionist |
|
4 | 0.22% |
| Alliance / Irish Nonsectarian |
|
3 | 0.17% |
| Some Kind of Irish Nationalist |
|
36 | 1.98% |
| Misc. Far Left Trots |
|
35 | 1.93% |
| Misc. Far Right Fash |
|
8 | 0.44% |
| Monster Raving Loony |
|
49 | 2.70% |
| Space Navies Party |
|
39 | 2.15% |
| Independent / Single Issue |
|
2 | 0.11% |
| Can't Vote |
|
188 | 10.35% |
| Won't Vote |
|
8 | 0.44% |
| Spoiled Ballot |
|
15 | 0.83% |
| Pissflaps |
|
312 | 17.17% |
| Total: | 1817 votes | ||
|
Reposting this since it was posted in what I assume was the middle of a debate: Even though I'm an American I took yer poll fer poo poo an giggles. http://imgur.com/a/Zer0v The poll sucked - that or the way the campaigns present themselves is very misleading. Even I who follows British politics quite closely, was unable to decipher quite a bit of the policy questions.
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:46 |
|
|
Namtab posted:We're going to have to have words about your ideas re: health policy Well as it was presented to me... quote:Party 5 None of these seemed to bad of an idea to me.... Investing 11 billion pounds in the NHS ...Good. Discontinue pay caps for low wage public workers...Good. Guarantee rights to EU Nationals working in health in the UK...Good Training more health professionals...maybe this speaks to my US experience..but one of the causes of high costs in the US is lack of health professionals so IMO...Good. Increasing spending on Mental Health Services.....Good. Allowing more schools to teach medicine..connected with the above issue..Good. Limiting access to some NHS services by some foreign nationals I don't think is a bad idea...if you have for example tourists having a non-emergency visit they should have to pay something. 20-30 dollars. But don't just give them service for free. I'm assuming the last thing is not a bad idea either. And there were a lot of things...for example there was one transportation infrastructure policy I agreed with everything...except they wanted to ban any expansion of any airport and end gas subsidies for travel. I'm an American and I know plane prices in Europe are a drop in the bucket compared to what they cost here in the Americas. Do they really want to lose affordable tickets and make it much more expensive to travel for everyone? Because I think that's what that kind of policy would end up doing. And that hurts everyone, low class to middle to high. If a airport like Heathrow has too much traffic (and it seems to me like it does) you really need to expand it. I just can't see why anyone would be opposed to this. ISeeCuckedPeople fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Jun 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:UKIP was pro NHS privatization until very recently. But it didn't tell me which policies came from which party. How was I supposed to guess?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
spectralent posted:"Limit access to foreign nationals" means "People who work and live here and pay taxes to fund this health service, who may even work in this health services, should Go Home if they want medical care for anything less than a heart attack". Now explain why some people want to do away with fuel subsidies for flights and not expand your airports?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Fuel subsidy for flight would make flying cheaper to operate and lead to under-valuing of a carbon source, I assume. Opposing that would be trying to financially encourage people to make less flights. Remember this is the UK, if you need to get to most places in the UK it's like a 6-8 hour train ride at most, there's really no reason to fly within-country. 6 to 8 hours is a long period of time. If I could fly for a reasonable price as I understand you can in England to these places that I go in America I would. But from my airport a 1.5 hour flight cost $400 and a 3-4 one costs $700. And those are local within the us. Not international.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
TACD posted:You can't realistically tackle climate change while also farting out an ever-increasing number of jumbo jets. Sure you can. 20%-30% of carbon emissions come from livestock. Only like 10% come from planes. If that. Planes are pretty green compared to cars.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:That's because your airlines are bad. You can quite easily get £100 2-hour flights around the EU, so airfares are cheap enough subsidy isn't needed, decreased emissions are. The airlines would all convene together to do massive price hikes and blame the party who removed the subsidies and they would lose the next election based off that attack.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
TheRat posted:This sounds very american My positions are calculated with the recognition that as an American big business rules supreme and will respond to any threat with anything and everything including literal assassination. That's why when you develop policy you have to analyze response and counter strategy from every single possible attacking point and come up with policy that is bullet proof in that regard.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Think you're over-estimating how important flying is in peoples lives. Reminder that Britain is actually not a big island. I guess so. In the US everyone I know flies. And as a immigrant flying is a important part of my life. I do it at least 4 times a year. I'd do it more if it cost as much as it did in Europe. Probably once a month. spectralent posted:I think most people wouldn't care, especially if this came out alongside better rail. Maybe things are different in England. In the US they would call the president a Gay Marxist Unamerican Thug and hang effigies of him in front of the white house while the law got sued to the supreme court. Some angry rednecks would probably shoot up an airport. Or bomb it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
So based on the Yougov projections the Tories will not take a majority correct? In that case is it hung? Or what percentage do you need to hold to hold power? Can parties make coalitions? Would the rest of the left be willing to form a coalition with Labour or is their only hope come from winning a majority outright?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes parties can make coalitions, we had one until 2015. What about the SNP? Plaid Cymru? Green Party? I though they were considered left? And the Lib-Dems? More likely to stand with the Tories than Labour?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:SNP have an image of being "progressive" but they are not particularly left, PC and the greens account for, what, three MPs? The lib dems were in government with the tories from 2010 to 2015... I do somewhat. How is being Progressive not being leftist? In the us the only leftists we have are progressives. And I assume that the SNP are to the left of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown who built the modern Labour party right? So how would one even claim Labour itself is leftist by these standards?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Left is economics, "progressive" is social. Lib dems are progressive, sometimes, but definitely not left. You say that the SNP isn't to the left on economics but I assume the SNP aren't sitting happily as the NHS is destroyed and sold off by the Tories or food benefits for school children are taken from them. But maybe this comes from my American background. Here being "Left" on economics means supporting a wide safety net, welfare, subsidies, these sort of things. With the extent you support these programs being how hard to the left you are. Regulating companies to some extent and the extent of supporting regulation defines how to the left you are when it comes to economics. And I assume that the SNP doesn't oppose funding the NHS properly, and doesn't want to strip people of their pensions, or isn't against expanding public housing policy, or properly funding education & infrastructure. Because in the United States, the conservative party is all against these. They don't want any kind of public funds in healthcare, don't want any kind of public retirement program, and kind of public housing program, wants to sell all public infrastructure including parks to large corporations and anyone who does support any other policies is simply considered a economic leftist. Right now I know that Brexit is the big dominating factor. But I assumed that SNP was very much against that, seeing how they wanted to push for another independence vote just so they could continue to remain part of the EU while England Brexited, until the EU vetoed that option as my understanding of the news is. So in my consideration I assumed that all these parties, seeing the horrible things the Tories have done to the NHS, to Education, would come together to prevent the bleeding. But maybe I underestimate the maturity of UK politicians.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Maybe UK politics and parties aren't really comparable to the American situation, and a key to understanding our system is to not try and compare it to yours. But that's really not possible for an American that's the only situation they know and understand. Have you ever heard of Plato's Allegory of the Cave?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Paperhouse posted:It's worth looking at Labour's election manifesto - http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017 Crazy how little foreign policy there is in that. Probably knowing how much Corbyn seems to side with the Russians - which worries me. No proper policy from either party to how to deal with Russia, who has now stolen the elections of one of the largest countries on earth, targetted Brexit election as well with it's disinformation campaign, and will target these elections as well there is no doubt. I sure hope england has safeguards in place to protect its government from politicians compromised or bought of by the Russians. But considering London is literally their playground, I don't see that happening. That is scary. OwlFancier posted:Broadly, I don't think they really care about that because the SNP are nationalists. They are, in many ways, a single issue party, which is that they want Scotland to be independent of the rest of the UK. The UK falling to bits is good for them because it makes people want to vote for independence because Scotland skews, in many ways, very anti-tory. Tories running the country is a boon to the SNP. They have limited power in Scotland because we have limited devolved powers but what power they have has not, generally, been used consistently to enact very leftist policies. They trend towards lower tax, cutting services, and not doing much in general, making them distressingly similar to the tories or the liberals. I assumed the SNP came to power because of the drop of funding to their constituencies due to the collapse of the labour party and in order to move their government more to the left which was prevented by the Tories. And I always assumed that once Labour came to power that they would be more than happy to work with them to pursue their ultimate goal of a more equal Scotland. ISeeCuckedPeople fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Jun 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That is almost entirely wrong, the SNP came to power because Labour has historically been very strong in Scotland but has failed to deliver much of substance there for some time and had become complacent. They are utterly opposed to Labour because Labour is unionist. The SNP have been around a long time and their goal has always been to get Scotland out of the political control of the rest of the UK, nothing more and nothing less. Equality has nothing to do with it. They are nationalists. I assumed the SNP was much like Sinn Fein; Left Wing Anti-UK Nationalists.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Namtab posted:The snp would be more likely to negotiate with Labour, but the underlying goal of the snp is Scottish independence because England is holding them back from being the land of milk and honey (probably half true). I though the UK subsidized them?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
The reality is extreme leftist revolutionary policies involving taking on the established vested elite has never ever loving worked and always made things worse for everyone involved; from China to the USSR to Brazil to Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba and beyond. The few that have succeeded (although you could debate what you call "success") like Ecuador and Greece were very careful to avoid pissing off all the most powerful people. In most cases like Greece, they actually didn't do anything at all. Whether you like that reality or not on a ideological or moral basis doesn't make it any less different. It can be argued and analyzed that Corbyn's peacenik Iraq War opposition mode is outdated and doesn't have a far reach beyond Britain. In the US even the most leftist politicians like Bernie Sanders never considered never intervening in the middle east again or shutting down the CIA or NSA. Those kind of ideas seem to share more with the ideology of Trump's America First and isolationism than with modern leftist thinking. A extreme overreaction to several events. Anyone who is leftist and really wants to reduce the power of the elites has to at the very least convince a good group of those elites to give up power, or be facing a emergency so great that it rocks the very foundations of those elites powers; like World War 1, The Great Depression or potentially the Great Recession. In reality there is a good reason idealistic youth should not run a country. ISeeCuckedPeople fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Jun 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:I burnt my eyeballs reading this take, it's that scorching. "Taking on established vested elites has never worked" OK buddy. It depends on what you define as "worked." The goal of any politician should be to improve the lives and situations of everyone. Period.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:the reality is you are woefully undereducated on the issue and your hot take is worthless thanks I am quite well educated on the issue I grew up in South America in a country in the middle of a civil war between right wing deathsquads and communist guerrilas and one of the most complex political scenes on earth. People who have power do not just give it up willingly. And they will do anything to keep it. And those patterns of power re-emerge in any form of government. ISeeCuckedPeople fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jun 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Mason's hardly going to have any politically naive disaffecteds rounding him up imo, I think the bloodbath would occur if Labour actually win, which would lead to one hell of a What Now problem for campaigners. That's not my argument. My argument is that extreme forms of leftism cause tension, possibly war, and make things worse for everyone. You only have to look at Venezuela, which was historically one of the richest countries on earth and now people are dying in the streets. My argument is that you need to work with those in power to obtain any kind of success, and until you are willing to do that the left will fail again and again at their goals. But please - guide me to the amazing extremely leftist countries that have improved the livelihoods of everyone in them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Nah, it should be the goal of a politician to protect workers from predatory employers, protect the ill from predatory "health" companies, protect commuters from predatory transport companies, & generally to protect humanity from the ravages of the free market by ensuring it is overthrown. Haha I'm not a Nihilist in the least. I'm simply pointing out that one can not be extremely leftist and hope to survive in politics. Lets take Gustavo Petro, former member of the M-19 Guerilla Terrorist Organization who demobilized and became a politican for the Democratic Pole in Colombia. Petro is a very smart, college educated man and of the best political speakers in the country - but he is also very prideful. He believes only his way is the right way. Believes that he is at war for the soul of the country. He doesn't talk to anyone but his advisors and other politicians of his party. He seeks not to work with people of other parties. He's very narrowminded. A bit like a mule. In 2011 he won the election to be mayor of Bogota, Colombia's biggest city. He proceeded to enact radical policies around the city all while ignoring many of his advisors. He defunded the police, started providing free food to the cities homeless, required that homeless housing be built in all the neighborhoods of the city and started a plan to de-privatize trash collection and convert it over to a public service. This all caused a major scandal - sent his approval ratings through the trash. The upper class and middle class disliked him because he started moving homeless people to their neighborhoods and crime shot up in what was already one of the most dangerous city in the continent. The lower classes disliked him because he ceased the heavy policing policies that kept a lot of their neighborhoods a lot safer than they were before and because before he had anything in place to take over trash collection he announced he was terminating all the contracts for trash collection in the city. As a result no trash was collected in the city for months. He bongdongled the whole plan to make trash collection a public service and it ended up painting a big target on him by the right. The Inspector General of the country stripped him of his position and he ended up destroying any hope of Colombia having any kind of successful leftist movement through incompetency and unwillingness to work with or even talk to everyone involved in running the city. He saw everyone as his enemies. I feel that model occurs quite often, and those who succeed with this kind of worldview end up running their country into the ground more so than doing anything to better it. ISeeCuckedPeople fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Jun 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Lord_Adonis posted:With all this talk of 'de-escalation' vis Corbyn, does anyone think that there is any value in allowing ISIS to create their Caliphate from the Sunni and Non-Kurd parts of Iraq and Syria, with the Shia and Kurdish parts of Iraq, Jordan, Turkey, and Assad Syria acting as a containment barrier to further expansion (With the support of NATO, Russia and China if called upon by those countries)? I would suggest that, having observed other nations considered 'ideologically extreme' moderate their relationship with the rest of the world over time, throughout history, might and ISIS caliphate not do the same? For example, after the revolution, the USSR was considered to be an international pariah. However, as little as ten years later, Stalin was able to somewhat normalise relations with the rest of the Capitalist world, with Khruschev and Brezhnev following through a generation after the Revolution. The same can be said for Iran since 1979 and China since the 1970s. I believe that the same dynamic would have occurred had the Taliban been left alone to consolidate their rule in Afghanistan. Perhaps de-escalation means a 'cordon-sanitaire' for a generation or two, giving the rulers of an ISIS Caliphate the time to determine that a hyper-exclusionist society will not work in the long term- bringing them to the table by showing them a better way that is able to compromise civil liberties and gender equality with the practise of Islam. If Christian-Democratic parties were able to reconcile civil society and religion in Europe, then why not Islamic-Democratic parties in the Islamic world? No this is not a good idea and it's never a good idea. ISIS is so extreme that they and Al Qaeda are enemies. ISIS is not going to ever moderate and reconnect with the west. Their goal is to goad the west into invading in a war they believe due to endtime prophecy they are going to win and that doing so will bring about the second coming of the prophets and the end of the world. It's literally a doomsday cult. Don't read too much into microshifts in polling. Anything less than 2-3 percentage points doesn't mean jack poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Weasling Weasel posted:It's all just nihilstic killing. With the IRA bombings, the demand was for a fully independent Ireland, and there was an understandable if completely unjustifable goal. What exactly is the point of killing for the ISIS perspective? How do you even stop purely random, nonsensical violence? You don't understand ISIS. Learn them. They don't want leftists to win in the west. They want the right wing to win. They want people who will invade Syria, because in Islamic prophecy the army of "Rome" is defeated at Debiq, Syria, and this defeat leads to the apocalypse. They are literally a doomsday cult who believes they are part of God's Army bringing around the end time. There's no way to argue or reason with this line of radical thinking. They will do anything and everything they need to do to ensure that the west invades. It would not surprise me if they carried out these attacks due to the rise of Labour in recent polls. They require us to invade Syria with a physical army and then lose to fulfill end time prophesy. Everything and everything they do points to these goals.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Maybe it's time to start going after the families of these suspects and deport them That is really not going to fix anything. Once again what ISIS and ISIS Terrorists do they all do to ensure the Western Invasion of Syria and the end-times. The media who fails to explain this as their goal and continues to constantly report day in and day out about them with no context are directly aiding them and bringing about the same goal of ISIS. There is only one way to stop ISIS and that is ignore them and their actions. To make them inconsequential.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
CottonWolf posted:We don't even know this is ISIS. And even if it is, it might be self-radicalised actors. It's a bit early to posit a grand plan to keep Corbyn down. You don't get it. They preach everywhere. Their message is universal and embedded in thousands of years of islamic teaching. It's like if a cult of christians developed a group of militia and took over ireland and pointed to the bible and said that it says the forces of rome will be destroyed in a battle in ireland and that would cause the second coming of christ and that they need to force a invasion of ireland by the rest of the world to bring about the end time and they kept teaching that all across the internet. If there is a self radicalized person performing a ISIS attack they believe they are serving allah by aiding in bringing about the end times and affecting the west to invade Syria so that every single infidel can be wiped off the face of the map at the final day of judgment by Allah. There is no other goal for them. Get it through your head.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
The scary thing is if Christians didn't hate Muslims so much and ISIS didn't hate Christians so much the prophecies they follow fall very much inline with the prophecies Christian Evangelicals believe. If they were actually to think outside themselves and Islam (impossibly since they are so radically islamic) their cross-religious outreach to bring the endtimes by targetting the Christian Radicals with these same ideas could have been very successful at causing more extremist attacks in the West.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Their kids are citizens but their parents sure as hell aren't Actually the parents are less likely to be radical and more likely to adapt to western values than the children. The reason their children radicalize falls entirely on western and british culture for not accepting them as much, having grown up as a second generation immigrant I know that feeling first hand. Where you feel to South America to be American and if you go to South America, too American to be South American. So you have no place. No home. No place you can identify with fully. But someone you met online tells you you can be good and loyal to your identity, and change the world at the same time by being a good christian, and killing other people, to bring about the second coming of Christ. Do you not see how this works?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
PIGS BREXIT posted:To be clear, do you guys actually believe that people read about the second coming of Jesus on the internet, and then decide to go do a terrorism to hasten it? And that there is no other influence or motivation for them that brings them to this point? They have online groomers. Mostly they pose as Islamic Scholars. They target immigrant children and youth in the west who are impressionable, feeling depression, pain in their life, feeling unhappy in their culture, aka the vast majority of people of that age group. They use tactics, just as a sexual predator does, to convince them and radicalize them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Namtab posted:To be clear, on the international scale IS are a problem, and ignoring them is probably not going to be any more effective than our current strategy of brimstone missiles. I don't really have an answer. The answer in the west at the very least is to form task force organizations that specifically target youth and young people at risk to being radicalized for cultural inclusion and guidance. These group are going to have to be religious in nature to be effective. And they are going to need ample funding. There is unfortunately nothing like that out there.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
I mean they're kids, they don't know their religion well. They didn't grow up and live through poo poo going down. They see the west and all the lovely things here like media, and consumerism. They're not stupid. There are online communities of tankies like /r/socialism that claim Stalin did no wrong and want to kill all non-communists. There are place like the /r/the_donald. These are all the natural results of the effects of the toxic society that boomers created are having on our youth and it's not isolated to ISIS. There are many radical communities having a hay-day recruiting people. They all follow a similiar model "I know the world is bad and nobody accepts you and things are not going well for you THIS IS WHY. DO X and together we can fix it" They usually connect to some old-religious teaching they have tucked away...or some old political school of thought. Like conservatism which amongst the youth died under Bush, but somehow was revived by Trumpians. We had a radicalized 20-something NeoNazi stab two people on public transportation because they defended a muslim a week or two ago. It's all loving connected.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
90% of the time the people that come to the west from Islamic Countries or Mexico or South America do it because they hated those countries, the people ruling them, the work situation there, and what they represent.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:so even with vastly increased fullblown 1984 powers they couldn't predict this lmfao enjoy your panopticon sheeple What I've gathered from these attacks is that the European Intelligence community is lightyears behind the NSA, CIA, and FBI when it comes to stopping these things.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:S'right, it's why nobody is stabbed for political reasons in the 'States. Not muslim terrorists at least. We catch a lot of these plot before they happen.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:The actual terror attacks themselves don't bug me half as much as the fact they end up working because we seem determined to let them. Half the country loses its poo poo, the press gorges itself for days on the carrion, fash crawl out of their lairs and the government does poo poo like put troops out on the streets. If the aim of these attacks is to demoralise, disrupt and spread hysteria then they're a resounding success. The only way to win at the terrorism game is to put restrictions on reporting.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
Lol please put Muslims in internment camps england so we can rightfully mark this era as the "Second Nazi Age"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdyerV8bfeA Go kill yourself you rotten piece of human fleshmeat. May God have mercy on your damned satan filled hate soul.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:Doesn't the US suffer multiple mass shootings a week? I wouldn't go patting yourself on the back just because your mass murderers aren't brown. But those are white people. We actually don't invest any resources in stopping those people because of white privilege.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Holy poo poo Sounds like your leadership is poo poo quote:Farage is dogwhistling like a madman there but I've read the Pilger article and I definitely have a lot of questions about why the gently caress the bomber managed to dodge arrest and how his involvement in an mi5 affiliated extremist group influenced this Calling for concentration camps isn't dogwhistling. It's hate speech. Do you have hate-speech laws in England?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:46 |
|
|
TheRat posted:The gloves appear to be off This looks good tbqh.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 19:16
|
|