I Will Deal With It

The country isn't in a mess though is it, that's just your bias view.

Whereas mentioning May makes it all too real

Because when things are desperate and the country is sinking it's easier to target someone like Corbyn who isn't in power and hasn't any responsibility for the mess. It's a bit like singing as the ship goes down-no bloody use but it keeps some people happy and stops them thinking about the disaster that's happening.

Comparing the attitudes of two political leaders to unacceptable regimes seems perfectly valid to me - whatever conclusion you reach.

Threads seem to deflect, divert, develop, regress etc - isn't that normal? So how can it be said that, in this case for example, May can't be mentioned on this thread? Why is it OK for Corbyn to come up on what seems like every thread whether it's appropriate or not? Obviously ( it seems to me) people are free to post anything on any thread about anyone although that will be with varying degrees of appropriateness. I think a joke about Corbyn when people are making a serious point about a real threat to world peace is very inappropriate - but then maybe my sense of humour doesn't fit with many on GN. What seems odd is that someone would tell a poster not to mention May on this thread. Why?

That's because you don't suffer from Selective Memory Syndrome, Anniebach !

I don't think your failing maryeliza - you made me smile

Primrose bossy? It isn't Primrose who tells poster to leave a thread or tell posters to shut up. I can't forget there was a poster who sent PM's telling other posters to ignore a certain poster , I don't recall there being much cricicsm or talk of bossing then.

Well I'm trying to sort out the rules re humour, tongue in cheek, when to be serious etc etc and failing miserably - oh well

It's in those unwritten rules that Gnet posters only find out about when they trangress. Mind you, Primrose hasn't been posting here for very long so she's clearly a fast learner (or is she making up a few?) . She's also turned out to be one of the bossy variety of posters who likes to tell other posters how to behave.
I'm just sniping from the sidelines because all this bossiness really pees me off. It starts pointless arguments and distracts from the ongoing discussion.

Can May only be mentioned on the Government thread and Corbyn on this thread ( and every other one it seems )? Who knew? Is it in the rules?

pursuing not persuading.

Sorry - time to do something else I think.

not pr - press.

The Tweeter you quoted is just plain wrong Primrose - as are you. The joke is about the people who are asking Corbyn to condemn anything they can think of to put him in what they see as a bad light. Who else is asked to do this? I think his reaction is that of a leader. He is not prepared to jump to the nonsense we can see from the right-wing pr with this 'Corbyn must condemn' campaign. No wonder it and those persuading it have become a laughing stock and are being belittled on Twitter.

"Did May hold up the Saudi's as a model nation?"

Perhaps you should take your own advice and not ask questions about May.

What's that got to do with Corbyn and Venezuela?
Save the May criticism for the govt thread - this is about Corbyn.

www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jul/27/childrens-crisis-yemen-conflict-80-percent-kids-urgent-aid-acute-malnutrition

Bloody hell, primrose, May gives out certificates like confetti to her donors allowing them to sell arms and planes to Saudi to bomb Yemen to bits, along with lots of kids.
You must know that, surely.
Perhaps you support it.

And yeah, everyone on Twitter is finding it hysterically funny.

It's a shame. If he has any influence, he should use it. He's quick off the mark when it comes to phone calls congratulating Maduro. Being on the 'right side of history' means telling your friends when they overstep the mark or move towards dictatorship.

He's just not a leader. He's basically admitting publically he has no global influence at all, as are all the people saying 'he can do nothing'.

Joke about it all you want. It's the only thing the far left seems capable of doing when things go wrong.

Owen Jones made an ass of himself using the Saudi's as deflection. Did May hold up the Saudi's as a model nation?

Some wonderful #Corbyn must condemn are running on Twitter.

Corbyn's failure to condemn Kristin Shepard's 1980 shooting of JR Ewing speaks volumes about his Marxist agenda #CorbynMustCondemn

Surely #CorbynMustCondemn Marx and Engels for their drunken rowdiness in London in the mid 1800s. He's responsible for them after all

#CorbynMustCondemn The metamorphosis of lost single socks into Tupperware

I'm deadly serious: #CorbynMustCondemn the outrageous price increases on Cadbury's Freddos.

If Corbyn were responsible for what is happening in Venezuela or had any control over it I could understand the silly 'he must condemn' comments. As it is he has done just what anyone should and condemned the "violence on all sides". Now do tell me just what May has condemned - certainly not her friends in Saudi to whom she is prepared to sell arms.

GG You're deflecting from his behaviour trying to attack the 'logic' of my opinion.
Is it because his behaviour is indefensible?
Let's concentrate on Jeremy.
Because, logically, he's the topic of this thread.

That's still not logical. It is expressing your view I agree but the thought process shows no logic at all. Because of the way you keep putting it forward I thought we needed to bring it down to the logic we were taught in primary school.

That's not the logic at all gg

Jeremy goes to Venezuela
Jeremy says they are 'an inspiration to all of us.'
Jeremy will not condemn a socialist dictator who is out of control, murdering the opposition, locking up thousands and driving the economy of the country into the ground.

Plenty of people, myself included, think Jeremy will 'do bad things' as he openly praises dictators who 'do bad things'.

Defending his actions by comparing them to a primary school logic puzzle is really quite pathetic, ridiculous and infantile!

So you support a right wing dictator nigglynellie. It seems rather ridiculous to compare the left wing Venezuelan system which has struggled with economic problems with someone who from the outset had no respect for human life.

"From the moment Pinochet assumed power, he wanted to instill a sense of fear in the Chilean population. These fears manifested with his authorization of the "Caravan of Death". Following the coup on September 11, Pinochet ordered this Chilean Army death squad to target the leaders of the PU by any means necessary. The Caravan of Death, under the leadership of Sergio Arellano Stark, killed 68 people within three days, by stabbing, beating and shooting them. The establishment of the Caravan of Death served three main purposes: 1) silence dissent through murder, 2) weed out military officials who were not aligned with Pinochet's regime and 3) establish fear within leadership ranks. The Caravan of Death resulted in the institutionalization of a state-sponsored system of terror.[27]"