HolyRomanThempire

This all feels like a major reach. I am someone who is very happy to withdraw my support for someone if I'm given new information about them that tarnishes their image but that hasn't happened for me with Corbyn. It could, not going to deny the possibility, but not anywhere close yet tbh.

The neoliberalists and imperialists made up the majority of the party and they were gunning for a reason to oust him from day 1, it was a miracle he managed to become LOTO with the views he has. If he starts purging the party they would have given a vote of no confidence and/or mass resigned all while the media slams him for antisemitism and it would have been the end of his chances of becoming PM. Now obviously, that happened to some extent anyway and I think it's completely reasonable to be critical of that aspect of his campaign (although hindsight bias is a thing) but it's so much less black and white than "he cared about optics then but not now".

Not to mention the fact Zarah is the one who went nuclear with the "sexist boys' club" stuff - if it weren't for her statement I would have made 0 assumptions about the issue with the portal. Hell, I initially thought they'd been cyber-attacked in some way. It's also a very different situation when people's money is involved. Are you telling me you can't think of a single reasonable or believable reason Corbyn could have had to react the way he did other than "he hates her and feels threatened by her and wants to push the party right"? Like, Zarah could have fucked up big time and we simply do not have the information to say.

[Sidenote, but I can't find anything that says he reported Zarah to the authorities]

I can't find a single thing in the Green Party's 2017 manifesto about NATO but their current manifesto explicitly states their dedication to working with them. As for the Labour 2017 manifesto, the fact that this was after the Brexit referendum should, I feel, explain at least some of the sentiment around this. People in Britain were already outraged about leaving the EU and how it would affect their future so I don't think it's unreasonable to think that selling an exodus from NATO at this time would have exacerbated things.

Like, I don't see why we are giving absolutely zero room for nuance or other explanations for actions when I thought that's what MLs do better than anyone else? Suddenly the idea of "critical support" has gone out the window because of some inconclusive messages in a WhatsApp group that tell us absolutely nothing? Like what is the conclusion here? That Corbyn is just another old white guy desperate for political power and will cut down younger opposition to get it? I genuinely don't understand what we're implying his intentions are here.

[Another sidenote, found more WhatsApp messages while doing some digging on the entire thing]

Yeah, I have seen them. I also have no idea what they mean or what they imply to be occurring.

Also, I wanted sources for why you thought Corbyn was a "wrecker" or how he's betrayed people. Everything I've seen has just left me with a lot of questions about the entire thing that I want answers to. The article you linked only gave me more questions and the screenshots don't really answer anything.

Like, there are far, far too many possible explanations for stuff that's going on other than "Corbyn is controlled opposition and scared by a radical Muslim woman and we should immediately turn on him" for me to feel comfortable definitively coming to that conclusion.

Okay, so what I think I'm reading is that there is a lot of internal debate about how to get things done and that internal debate is causing people to lose faith in the party? I'm not a big fan of the article because it uses far too many "reportedly" or "we have heard" arguments but assuming all their information is correct that's what I'm seeing.

I can't help but feel we are just jumping to conclusions to a pretty insane degree here. I can understand the backlash surrounding Adnan (though I do think however many bad-looking tweets isn't enough to tell the whole picture), and if his involvement led to the party taking an anti-trans stance that would absolutely be a red line for me, but we literally just don't have the info yet and I think making sweeping statements like this doesn't help anyone.

Okay, well whatever you wanna call wrecking a party because he feels threatened by a Muslim woman - not really focused on semantics here.

I just wanna see sources that this is, in fact, some bullshit factionalism at work and not something else. Stuff I've seen so far leaves way too many question marks over a lot of things and I'd like to be better informed.

Do you have sources for this? I've seen some of the conflict between the two but I haven't seen anything explaining the reasons behind what happened.

There's a few aspects to the Your Party stuff that I'm not super fond of but I don't think I wanna throw the entire thing under the bus without seeing some kind of clear evidence that this is a case of discrimination and not something else entirely.

Not that I think this isn't something the US would do but:

Why does the video of the incident look so fake? The black borders disappear as soon as the explosion happens and it cuts out the start of the explosion. The way the camera refocuses on the boat looks like something out of an analogue horror video - I swear the ocean current is moving in a different direction afterwards too (hard to tell).

Someone more knowledgeable than me able to clue me in? Does this footage look off or am I just crazy?

I hate to be a doomer but I legit do not know how this country can do anything but continue going downhill.