What a biased mess THAT debate was.
 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-fairly.html

Confirmation there was a left wing bias as we all knew anyway. Apart from anything else the lefties are nearly always the gobby ones. They clearly believe shouting the loudest is the only way to be heard. Whereas most believe it to be substance. :hehe:

Aye, it was pretty obvious.

Wheres the confirmation? Thats just the dm having a cry cos right wing parties came off the worst

Where is the confirmation?

To be quite honest, the so called equal division between Tory, Labour and undecided is very much dubious when you watch these shows.
Anybody can apply and answer untruthfully, they have to be taken at their word.

A percentage of the audience was picked for each party candidate - 5 left learners v 2 right learners - basic math should do it. :smug:

So an audience of 45% torys and 2% green is the answer to a non-biased room lmao. Ok.

Also its more 1 left, 4 central, 2 right anyway. Biased in rights favour if anything

Rubbish. Even labour supporters and the boss of ConRes said the same. And we could all see for ourselves.

'When half the audience is clapping for Corbyn you don't HEAR the ones that aren't clapping'.

Brings me back to my point about the most vocal shouting the loudest.

Screaming @ the daily mail complaining about media bias

irony anyone

They brought in equal support for each party, obviously thats fairest. Tories were probably quieter cos some random ass woman was debating on Mays behalf

Any possible bias in the audience was made up with the biased edit of the debate from the BBC anyway..

BBC apparently picks a labour-leaning audience:

Reaction = "OMG PRESS BIAS! WTF!? UNFAIR!!"



The Sun / Mail / [insert loser-moron-sad-press rag of your choice here] prints story after story about Corbyn being a "dangerous terrorist sympathizer" who hates Britain and wants your children to die.

Reaction = "Freedom of speech. Totally reasonable and accurate objective facts and amazing journalism."


:joker: It's like our very own little unfunny sitcom.

She says with probably her fiftieth thread directed at 'the left' in a month.

Also the idea that Theresa May - who campaigned for "Remain" and then jumped at the chance to be PM and lead the Brexit charge when Cameron left - somehow represents "substance" :joker:. The woman has zero integrity, willing to compromise every single one of her beliefs and principles to worm her way into the job of PM... a job which she is ill-suited for, and only got because no one else ****ing wanted it at the time :hehe:

Dear me may gets shown up for the incompetent she is and its the audiences fault :joker:

Think about it.. it could have been a room full of momentum members, if may was half as credible as she thinks she is and confident in her policies and mandate for the future and brexit then she would have been able to convey that adequately.

She didn't because she can't.

Neither of them were perfect.she was steely ,he was shifty.

Spot on!

I thought I'd join the club - gobby not leftie.

And Corbyn is so full of integrity. He buys young votes promising 50% of budget going on uni students - doesn't the NHS need it more - according to all the lefties they do. But he needs those votes - priorities hey!

He will not protect this country from nuclear weapons or terrorists. He will simply get to indulge his idealistic 'principles' with no regard to safety. He is an entitled white boy who loves to challenge the system. An anarchist to the core.

Our country deserves better.

50% of the budget? 50%?? :joker:

Well you heard it here first folks; news flash! Corbyn has promised to spend £400 billion on Uni students. You've been reading too many tabloids again Brillo, you can't just make up ludicrous statistics and expect people to say "ehmegerd rly, how awful so much moneh!".

You could say "Doesn't the NHS need it more?" about every single piece of budget funding. Yes the NHS needs funding. That doesn't mean that there aren't also other important areas. In fact, there is ample evidence to suggest that a population with a generally higher level of education is likely to ease the burden on health services. Social deprivation massively increases the rate of chronic illness. Or in other words... More money being put into education DOES help the NHS.

And finally

Trident is not a nuclear defense system, it doesn't protect us from anything.

Ooh I got the figure wrong - shoot me. Whatever, it is a Hugh slice of the budget - money that would be better spent on the NHS, the emotional ride the left keep taking when it suits.

What about NOW - isn't the here and now what the left rant on about the most - the NHS need money now so to give more to students is an agenda - a vote agenda.

Uni students don't currently have to pay fees in advance, that really would prevent poorer students from going to uni - what is wrong with the current system.

They don't have to pay it back until they earn a set amount and then it is an affordable amount and related to their income - that seems very fair to most. The debt is even written off after a period of time if people are not in a situation to pay it back. Why on earth should high earners not contribute to an education that will lead to them being high earners. Again - votes.

As for trident - it is his views on nuclear weapons in general that is worrying - he may start with Trident - what next. He can't be trusted on security as he has made his views on this painfully clear.

You do realise that the last nuclear bomb that was dropped, was dropped because there wasn't a threat of retaliation? And you do realise that we all want a World free of a nuclear threat? but the reality is, many of todays cultures have nukes, Pakistan have nukes, and that is the reason we are in Afghanistan.

The nuclear deterrent is the reason we had the Cold war and not World war III. And having a leader that say's they are not prepared to press the button, makes us weak with regards to countries and cultures that do have nuclear weapons and are prepared to use them against us. And it also sends out a message that we are all talk and no action.

I would love to be like the neutral countries of WW2 and not have to be bothered about world affairs and expect others to defend our neutrality, but the reality is that we are the historic model of Democracy that every notion of state Democracy around the world is based upon and consequently we have a responsibility to defend our ideology no matter what

Precisely. :dance:

Except that our entire Nuclear arsenal is a proxy of the US Nuclear weapons programme, we have no independent programme that we maintain on our own, and 93% of the world's nuclear weapons belong to the US and Russia. We play absolutely no role in M.A.D and we never will; we just like to pretend that we do, a dick swinging contest, to the tune of billions.

Also, no one in the world who is not a complete psychopath would actually push the button and everyone knows that. The only difference between Corbyn and the others is that he's not willing to tell the bare-faced lie that he would. "Oh yes of course I would obliterate the world if it came down to it!", crow most politicians. Would they actually, though? And what would be the point? So whoop-de-****ing-doo.