Quote Originally Posted by Idaho View Post
This video is the equal and opposite of this:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...o-antisemitism

Both are essentially bollocks. Click bait for the converted. It's news pumped out like viruses or bacteria. It's meant for someone to click on and paste somewhere - like you and me have done. The advertisers get the money (Google probably in both cases, and the respective "newspapers" get a cut. But does it actually mean anything Phillip? Is it just internet froth manipulated by advertisers, media pundits and political backers?

Of course there is a kernel of truth in both. But there is a kernel of truth in most bland, circumstantial correlations.

Is this as good as it gets?
Honestly, I personally find the preponderance of evidence of Corbyn's antisemitism persuasive. It's not the relationship with Ken Livingstone (although they were close), it's not the forward to the book (though the book was a foundational text for 20th Century antisemitism), it's not the mural (though that's obviously peddling a conspiracy theory), it's not even the time Corbyn insinuated "Zionists" weren't properly English.

It's the whole shebang, Idaho - it's when you take more than two of those things and you have to ask "how stupid is he?" This Epshtien thing is just the latest example - and it DOES feed directly into the medieval blood-libel.

So, really, this election is about choosing between Boris Johnson who's entire political philosophy seems to be quoting Cicero and expediency, and Corbyn who's pretty definitely probably might be an antisemite.