Jacob Rees Mogg

[ManOfSussex]

Not really, that's an ugly front page (I don't read the Sun so I hadn't seen it), and I'm not claiming JC gets treated with kid gloves, far from it. But the attacks against JC seem to me to always be focused on policy, even that front page, ugly as it is. Conservatives often get accused of selfishness, caring about the rich and having contempt for the poor, things which go beyond criticisms of policy and enter the realm of impugning a persons character and claiming to be able to see into their soul. It's a subtle difference, but there is a difference.

The personal attacks, when they happen, cut both ways and are absolutely no different and I've seen plenty of them on here.

 

[darkwolf666]

I wonder how many have actually listened to the Nick Ferrari interview on LBC this morning.

It was quite clear (to me ) that he applauded the concept of charitable Food Banks and the people that donated/organised them.

I don't recall at any point he said they were a replacement for Government action to sort out why people need them.

Still, he is a posh bloke with a double-barrelled name, best pile in.

But you are missing the point! As a member of the government, rather than saying how uplifting he found food banks he should be saying they will be doing all they can to negate the need for food banks in the first place.

 

[knocky1]

Rees Mogg 3-2 loss to the invert.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

I honestly don't think I have ever heard anyone suggest that JC is a bad person. Seriously I cannot think of one occassion. Misguided, yes, wrong, yes, but never ever a bad person with bad motives or bad intentions.

Just yesterday I read through an entire thread on here jam packed full of suggestions that Theresa May is a bad, uncaring, unkind person. Not that she is wrong, not that her politics are to be challenged, but that she is a bad person of bad character.

It's done because if you can claim someone is just simply a bad person, then you can dismiss what they say without the need to deal with their argument. It's lazy and it's ugly.

Really? So you were blissfully unaware of the right wing press' continued attempts to undermine and slander JC prior to, during and after the snap election? The fact he was accused of being an IRA and terrorist sympathiser slipped you by? When he said he was against nuclear warheads being used and thus dubbed a national threat didn't register? You're either in denial or blind.

 

[dingodan]

The personal attacks, when they happen, cut both ways and are absolutely no different and I've seen plenty of them on here.

I think you are right it's not going to be absolute, but I stand by my assertion that there is a tendency towards attacking the moral character of conservatives and that tendency is not generally reciprocated by conservatives.

But then there is good reason for that, in my opinion. Liberal positions tend to be emotionally driven, conservative positions tend to be logically driven. It's easier intellectually to defeat a liberal position than it is to defeat a conservative one. When you can't defeat a position intellectually, you have to resort to tying to defeat it emotionally, and that results in name calling & attempts at character assassination.

In my opinion of course.

 

[ManOfSussex]

I think you are right it's not going to be absolute, but I stand by my assertion that there is a tendency towards attacking the moral character of conservatives and that tendency is not generally reciprocated by conservatives.

But then there is good reason for that, in my opinion. Liberal positions tend to be emotionally driven, conservative positions tend to be logically driven. It's easier intellectually to defeat a liberal position than it is to defeat a conservative one. When you can't defeat a position intellectually, you have to resort to tying to defeat it emotionally, and that results in name calling & attempts at character assassination.

In my opinion of course.

Which I disagree with as it cuts both ways and as has been pointed out already by someone else, you're either blind or in denial about the moral and character assassinations of Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell, Labour, Sturgeon, Salmond et al and name calling, so we'll have to leave it there.

 

[portslade seagull]

Really? So you were blissfully unaware of the right wing press' continued attempts to undermine and slander JC prior to, during and after the snap election? The fact he was accused of being an IRA and terrorist sympathiser slipped you by? When he said he was against nuclear warheads being used and thus dubbed a national threat didn't register? You're either in denial or blind.

He is a sympathiser though that's not made up

 

[The Rivet]

Really? So you were blissfully unaware of the right wing press' continued attempts to undermine and slander JC prior to, during and after the snap election? The fact he was accused of being an IRA and terrorist sympathiser slipped you by? When he said he was against nuclear warheads being used and thus dubbed a national threat didn't register? You're either in denial or blind.

No one needs to undermine him. History records that he is and probably still is and lastly that stance IS a national threat.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

He is a sympathiser though that's not made up

Very much up for debate, although I haven't the energy to put forward a point of view that after hours of debate you'd still disagree with.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

No one needs to undermine him. History records that he is and probably still is and lastly that stance IS a national threat.

Yeah, perusing peace and not wanting a nuclear holocaust is definitely a national threat...

 

[dingodan]

Really? So you were blissfully unaware of the right wing press' continued attempts to undermine and slander JC prior to, during and after the snap election? The fact he was accused of being an IRA and terrorist sympathiser slipped you by? When he said he was against nuclear warheads being used and thus dubbed a national threat didn't register? You're either in denial or blind.

I would agree that some of the IRA stuff might be borderline, in so far as it suggested he supported terrorism, but my understanding was always that he was being criticized for seeming to show support for those who were using violence, rather than supporting the use of violence itself.

The main point of what I was saying was actually that everyone, liberals, conservatives and all in between, everyone cares about people. Everyone wants to see less suffering, less poverty, more prosperity more peace. Everybody.

People who live in a world where the other side, their political opponents, are evil and don't care and are full of hate etc, those people live in a fantasy land. It's easy and it's comfortable because like I said before, you don't have to examine where your opponent is coming from, they are evil - nuff said. It's a warm blanket of ignorance and simplicity and it fuels the increasing division and polarization we see all around us.

What I am saying is good news, 99% of people are good, decent and care. We all care. We disagree about the means, but not the ends.

If people could only get their heads around this we could make much more progess solving problems and making things better for people. But it's hard work, or at least it's certainly harder work than name calling and judging others based on their tribe instead of their actual character.

 

[drew]

But you are missing the point! As a member of the government, rather than saying how uplifting he found food banks he should be saying they will be doing all they can to negate the need for food banks in the first place.

Head and nail spring to mind.

 

[The Rivet]

Which I disagree with as it cuts both ways and as has been pointed out already by someone else, you're either blind or in denial about the moral and character assassinations of Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell, Labour, Sturgeon, Salmond et al and name calling, so we'll have to leave it there.

Absolute Tosh. Corbyn an out and out socialist that loves communism (and money trees), Abbott a complete waste of intellectual and shadow cabinet space (shame she ca't add up) McDonnell a terrorist friend and dangerous hot head inciting illegal strikes. Labour ,well I don't need to say anything. Sturgeon a busted flush. Salmond consigned to the dustbin of politics. Anyone else you want to champion?

 

[dingodan]

Which I disagree with as it cuts both ways and as has been pointed out already by someone else, you're either blind or in denial about the moral and character assassinations of Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell, Labour, Sturgeon, Salmond et al and name calling, so we'll have to leave it there.

Nobody accuses those people you have listed of not caring about people. Nobody questions their motives, people do vigorously question their methods, but only on the merits of the argument.

Funny enough I have big problems with most of those people you listed, they are all people who do what I am saying, they suggest that their political opponents are bad people and are uncaring and selfish. They don't play the ball they play the man. & no, I don't see them recieving the same treatment, yes they get a lot of stick, but on the substance of their positions, not on their character.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Absolute Tosh. Corbyn an out and out socialist that loves communism (and money trees), Abbott a complete waste of intellectual and shadow cabinet space (shame she ca't add up) McDonnell a terrorist friend and dangerous hot head inciting illegal strikes. Labour ,well I don't need to say anything. Sturgeon a busted flush. Salmond consigned to the dustbin of politics. Anyone else you want to champion?

Is it wise to wave around the old 'money tree' line after May magically found some money to bribe the DUP and this stay in power? People in glass houses and all that...

 

[ManOfSussex]

Absolute Tosh. Corbyn an out and out socialist that loves communism (and money trees), Abbott a complete waste of intellectual and shadow cabinet space (shame she ca't add up) McDonnell a terrorist friend and dangerous hot head inciting illegal strikes. Labour ,well I don't need to say anything. Sturgeon a busted flush. Salmond consigned to the dustbin of politics. Anyone else you want to champion?

In your little, old Tory opinion, which I'm not particularly interested in. Carry on though.

 

[The Rivet]

Yeah, perusing peace and not wanting a nuclear holocaust is definitely a national threat...

NO nuclear deterrent is a national threat, No one wants a nuclear holocaust but you have countries threatening it. We don't threaten it but we sure can deliver it. Do you see the correlation or do you need re-education?

 

[ManOfSussex]

Nobody accuses those people you have listed of not caring about people. Nobody questions their motives, people do vigorously question their methods, but only on the merits of the argument.

Funny enough I have big problems with most of those people you listed, they are all people who do what I am saying, they suggest that their political opponents are bad people and are uncaring and selfish. They don't play the ball they play the man. & no, I don't see them recieving the same treatment, yes they get a lot of stick, but on the substance of their positions, not on their character.

You don't see it so it doesn't happen. Good logic.

 

[The Rivet]

Is it wise to wave around the old 'money tree' line after May magically found some money to bribe the DUP and this stay in power? People in glass houses and all that...

Weak and cheap sonny, go play ball with someone else you identify with.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

I would agree that some of the IRA stuff might be borderline, in so far as it suggested he supported terrorism, but my understanding was always that he was being criticized for seeming to show support for those who were using violence, rather than supporting the use of violence itself.

The main point of what I was saying was actually that everyone, liberals, conservatives and all in between, everyone cares about people. Everyone wants to see less suffering, less poverty, more prosperity more peace. Everybody.

People who live in a world where the other side, their political opponents, are evil and don't care and are full of hate etc, those people live in a fantasy land. It's easy and it's comfortable because like I said before, you don't have to examine where your opponent is coming from, they are evil - nuff said. It's a warm blanket of ignorance and simplicity and it fuels the increasing division and polarization we see all around us.

What I am saying is good news, 99% of people are good, decent and care. We all care. We disagree about the means, but not the ends.

If people could only get their heads around this we could make much more progess solving problems and making things better for people. But it's hard work, or at least it's certainly harder work than name calling and judging others based on their tribe instead of their actual character.

Whilst I would never go as far calling the conservatives 'evil' their policies tend to have a habit of helping those who already have the means to help themselves. Their policies are, IMO, morally questionable especially when it perpetuates the suffering of the most vulnerable in society and then throw around the tagline 'we're all in this together' when we clearly aren't.