Comments by "Cinderball" (@cinderball1135) on "Boris Johnson summoned to court over Brexit ‘lies’" video.

Jacob Rees Fopp, I don't know if you've noticed this, but in "totalitarian regimes" where the judicial branch gets weaponised, it's usually the government that's doing it. This is what we call direct democratic action - civil resistance, if you will. Perhaps you could look it up. It's what we do when men in power step too far. There's no violence here - just a little bit of accountability.
35
@woden3894 (a) - I'm not a Corbyn fan, and (b) - those stories are nothing like as well-substantiated as the clear-cut falsehood of Boris Johnson's lies. (c) - Corbyn hasn't swung any elections recently using underhanded means, whereas Boris Johnson's lie may very well have changed the outcome of the referendum. (d) - If all you have is whataboutery, kindly sod off. The worst that Corbyn is guilty of, as far as I can tell, is being a little bit endearingly useless.
3
@connormadeley7979 Who's the bigger man - the one who comes at you with a knife, or the one who can make his point with nothing more than a milkshake?
3
@woden3894 Well, you seem to be taking your facts from the alternative universe brand of news, so I think we had best agree to disagree and leave it there. Suffice it to say, there's nothing scary or spoopy about this legal action being taken against Boris Johnson - and if your boy is as innocent as you say, then doubtless the case will be thrown out of court and you have nothing to worry about. :)
1
@ceejay4284 For once in my life, I'd really like to be @ replied by somebody who's done me the courtesy of reading my damn comment.
1
@ceejay4284 If you did indeed read my comment, then I have to say I'm getting rather exasperated with your, and various other people's attempts, to try and insert Corbyn into the conversation - and by extension, to paint me as a Corbynite. It's neither relevant to the conversation, nor particularly accurate. It's a thing we call "whataboutery", and it's a dishonest debating tactic. Do us both a favour, and cut it out.
1
@ceejay4284 If you read the comment thread far enough back, the original insertion of Jeremy Corbyn into the conversation most definitely was whataboutery. What's happened here is basically the confusion and misunderstanding that you'd expect when somebody jumps into the conversation midstream. The crux of what I have to say about Corbyn is this. On many political issues I agree with him, but I deplore his Brexit stance, because he's giving oxygen to the narrative that there is such a thing as a "soft" Brexit or a "smooth" transition - there is not. If we leave, it's going to mean crashing out - and I for one cannot stomach that. The allegations of his being buddy-buddy with terrorists are, as far as I can tell, almost entirely fabricated by the tabloids. If we are going to haul up every politician who's had conversations with Sinn Féin or Hezbollah, then we're going to have to fire the entire diplomatic corps of the Foreign Office. Boris Johnson's sins are much more concrete and measurable, however. He repeated a very specific claim, which he knew in advance was untrue. I'm not saying Corbyn has always been truthful - I'm saying that Johnson has lied in a way that makes him susceptible to this kind of legal action.
1
@ceejay4284 Well, if all you want to talk about is Corbyn, you already know my position by this point, so please let's not prolong the conversation.
1