2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Maybe "hypocrisy" isn't exactly the right word for dropping your strongly held principles (xenophobia) when it is convenient. But it is close.

At least she's not holding to that principle when it causes a problem. It's called 'pragmatism'.

41 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, the WH  wants to control the narrative... like several countries elsewhere.

It is worse, they want to re-write existing data and suppress scientific guidelines.

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

At least she's not holding to that principle when it causes a problem. It's called 'pragmatism'.

It's always caused problems. It was one of her disastrous red lines that made her unable to negotiate a deal with the EU.

10 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It is worse, they want to re-write existing data and suppress scientific guidelines.

I think so too. They are fantasists and liars with an overarching agenda to hold on to power.

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

It's always caused problems. It was one of her disastrous red lines that made her unable to negotiate a deal with the EU.

John threw in a  false association to try and make a, to me, spurious connection. This is the problem when one sits firmly somewhere on the political spectrum: we become prone to confirmation bias and look for things to support our agenda.

Edited May 8, 20205 yr by StringJunky

22 hours ago, StringJunky said:

You took what she was referring to totally out of context. I see no hypocrisy. Two different areas of application. Read this properly and what she's referring to:

"Nationalism is no ally in this battle without borders"

She's referring to disease and how it is indiscriminately crossing international boundaries. Nationalism is impotent in this case.

In exactly which battles is nationalism an ally?

(note, it's "the enemy"'s  nationalism that starts the unnecessary  battle in the first place.)

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

In exactly which battles is nationalism an ally?

(note, it's "the enemy"'s  nationalism that starts the unnecessary  battle in the first place.)

In war... nice side-track. In international sports. In any situation where it may gel a country together in the face of adversity. The salient part is what Theresa meant.

 

Edited May 9, 20205 yr by StringJunky

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

In war... nice side-track.

War as a side track from battle...

On 5/8/2020 at 7:01 PM, StringJunky said:

John threw in a  false association

A comparison between Mrs May's xenophobia which caused problems when she was in office and her denouncement of it now.

 

On 5/8/2020 at 6:58 PM, StringJunky said:

At least she's not holding to that principle when it causes a problem. It's called 'pragmatism'.

That principle caused major problems when she was in office.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

In war..

Not really. Despite the current right-wing Brexiter propaganda, during the last war it was very much "the Allies" fighting the war. With rare exceptions like "the Battle of Britain", which was more the battle for Britain.

Something unimportant like sport was probably a better choice.

On 5/8/2020 at 7:58 PM, StringJunky said:

At least she's not holding to that principle when it causes a problem. It's called 'pragmatism'.

And yet that pragmatism couldn't be applied to the problem of "not trashing the British economy." Because her xenophobia was more important than jobs or poverty.

I'm afraid that picking and choosing when to abandon your principles in the name of pragmatism sounds a lot like hypocrisy.

On 5/8/2020 at 7:58 PM, StringJunky said:

At least she's not holding to that principle when it causes a problem. It's called 'pragmatism'.

Incidentally, when she was chosen as leader of the party, I thought that they had chosen someone pragmatic who would take a sensible approach. That view didn't survive very long.

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Incidentally, when she was chosen as leader of the party, I thought that they had chosen someone pragmatic who would take a sensible approach. That view didn't survive very long.

I feel she was trying to find a middle road, which actually probably conflicted with her. She did want to stay in.

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I feel she was trying to find a middle road, which actually probably conflicted with her. She did want to stay in.

But, it seems, she wanted power more than she wanted to do what was best for the country. So, she went along with Brexit.
It's not as if she was a great lover of either justice or the european legal system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Othman_(Abu_Qatada)_v_United_Kingdom
 

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I feel she was trying to find a middle road, which actually probably conflicted with her. She did want to stay in.

My impression was that she felt she had to convince the Brexit extremists of the party that she was on their side (for no other reason than wanting to be in charge) that she would say or do anything. (Sounding like hypocrisy yet?) Plus she is naturally xenophobic, so it wasn't too hard for her.

6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

But, it seems, she wanted power more than she wanted to do what was best for the country.

Yep. 

7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

So, she went along with Brexit.
It's not as if she was a great lover of either justice or the european legal system.

I think she was one of those who thought that leaving the EU would be a good excuse to get out of the ECHR. So another reason she wouldn't have found it too hard to switch sides.