U.S. Politics

[StefanAVFC]

12 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

I love your enthusiasm and your ability to see through what's going on. The point was really not excusing Trump and I know you know that and you're being playful, but the thing is your reply of "I'm not really interested" is a bit Trump follower-esque no? Are these not the facts you're looking for?

I'm not really interested in the context of this argument. What Bill Clinton did 20 years has nothing to do with Trump's behaviour now IMO. I'm not denying that it got him elected, in part, but Bill Clinton has nothing to do with Trump's fragrant dishonesty and gaslighting.

I'm just so fatigued with first, the endless deflection to HRC during the campaign and I presumed that it would end once he was elected and we have to start judging him on his merits and pitfalls. So I responded in a tired manner having seen yet another deflection to somebody with the surname 'Clinton', Maybe my response was wrong, but it was born out of frustration, rather than any dismissive of facts.

I mean really? Which world leaders bring cheerleaders to speeches? Which world leaders claim millions of people voted for his opponent illegally? (to the government, of all people) I had a debate with a friend yesterday who was dismissive of Trump's lying by saying 'all politicians lie'. For me, we're in totally different territory now. He could stand there and tell America that the sky is green and his press sec would call out the media for saying that it's actually blue and Conway would come out and say that Trump is providing an alternate fact and that we should accept it. It's directly out of the Putin playbook.

12 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

We are witnessing something huge happening. As others have pointed out it's a geo-political reshaping of the world right before our eyes.

If you haven't already, have a read of Foundations of Geopolitics. (or at least a summary in English) It maps out a drastic change in geopolitics based on Russia's agenda and many of the points are either in progress or have happened already.

Edited January 24, 2017 by StefanAVFC

[VILLAMARV]

1 hour ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Could it be that he is not even bothered about the small stuff and basically says what he wants ?

I don't care if 5 billion people turned up or 7,  in the big scheme of things small stuff really does not matter when compared to trade or ISIS for example.

He won the election and threw the media a little bone and it runs with "more people, less people"  comparisons.  The media are pathetic and would have jumped on anything,  the grass was greener for Obama or it was colder this time than for Obama.  The press have nothing,  will get nothing and this is the best they can hope for,  basically school newspaper stuff that makes them look like chumps and will do for the next 4 years.  Powerless media now,  not even after all the things Trump has said and done,  they still couldn't get someone else in the White House.  words removed.  He is playing the media like a fiddle to be honest.  The  'alternative truth',  this is the same as pig fancier Cameron's " we will look after " Hard working"  families" , had he not lied then the UK would undoubtedly still be in the EU.  There are White house " How many people" lies and there are lies that put people into poverty.

I honestly think it's just as simple as he knows what he wants and just does not care what he says or does in the pursuit of it. I think the rest of his life stands testament to that.

You're right the small stuff doesn't really matter but we are watching him set his stall out. Look how agressive he and his staff are towards the press over this trivial shite, now imagine what he'll be like over the important issues. It doesn't bode well. As Stefan has been pointing out.

The American press is wondering, like the rest of us, how they are going to play this. Organisations have basically been embedded media for ages now, some have always been political mouthpieces like our once respected BBC has sadly become. But you're right, he's stripping them of the last vestiges of power and respect before our eyes.

To ignore the way Obama, Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr have systematically attacked and suppressed dissenting voices and real journalism in America over the last 20 years of my adult life would be shortsighted though. The only thing I see that's different is he is happy to openly attack the press now the mouthpiece direct to the masses is here in the technological age.

[tonyh29]

4 hours ago, Davkaus said:

This is pretty scary.A bunch of nutters on the internet (hopefully) aren't representative of the American electorate, but there are tens of thousands of hardcore Trump supporters over on Reddit, and I find myself browsing their sub with fascination and horror as they convince themselves that every criticism by the "mainstream media" is an invention, and Trump is the single source of truth.

at least they are meeting on the internet rather than smashing up coffee shops in the name of democracy  

 

[choffer]

Just to lighten the mood a little:

 

[ml1dch]

6 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

 Organisations have basically been embedded media for ages now, some have always been political mouthpieces like our once respected BBC has sadly become. 

Who exactly do you think the BBC have become a mouthpiece for?

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

He won the election, yet he can't stop talking about crowd sizes, or illegal voters, or lying about the **** weather for pete's sake.

Does that really matter though,  maybe he wants everyone to be distracted by it.  Seems to work quite well as people are getting a bit hot under the collar about silly little things.  I don't see anyone taking apart Obama's record or promises.  The real numbers that matter are not how many people turned up to see something,  if they had half a brain they get mannequins to represent everyone who has died in a mass shooting over the last 8 years.  I suggest these numbers are more important than who went to see a inauguration of someone who was not voted for in the state they are doing the counting.

I dunno,  seems a lot of effort is being made to shoot down everything Trump says or does.  

 

[VILLAMARV]

4 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Who exactly do you think the BBC have become a mouthpiece for?

Im not suggesting for a second they haven't always been a biased institution when it comes to news. Just that in my lifetime we have seen a drop in quality of reporting that is astounding. I see them as little more than a mouthpiece of our Govt now, with little or no journalistic standards. And I think that's a shame.

Edit: Hence at Trump's press conference he actually made me laugh with the line "Who? The BBC? Oh, there's another beauty" after accusing the throng of assembled journalists of being fake news.

And this is the clever bit of Trump's strategy, because to a certain extent he's right and we all know it.

Edited January 24, 2017 by VILLAMARV

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

I dunno,  seems a lot of effort is being made to shoot down everything Trump says or does.  

Maybe if stopped lying about stupid shit on a daily basis then the media would back off. The media is supposed to ignore when he blatantly gaslights the CIA? When he sends his press sec to attack the media over crowd numbers? When he lies about the weather? When he stands in front of the CIA memorial and bitches about the media being on his case? When he stands in front of congress and saying 3-5 millions people voted illegally? That is exactly what he wants. We need a strong media willing to call him out every time he does this. Not a media scared to challenge him, or a media that will start reporting his lies as anything other than what they are, lies.

Please don't try to victimise him here. He isn't a victim.

[StefanAVFC]

4 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

I see them as little more than a mouthpiece of our Govt now, with little or no journalistic standards. And I think that's a shame.

I disagree. I think the BBC is remarkable, based purely by the way it's viewed by all sides. It's one of the better news organisations in the world, bias-wise.

[StefanAVFC]

Sorry for triple post, but like clockwork...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/24/trumps-unsupported-claim-he-has-received-awards-on-the-environment/?postshare=6261485262037636&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.d22836c5887e

Quote

“I’m a very big person when it comes to the environment. I have received awards on the environment.”
— President Trump, remarks during a meeting with business leaders, Jan. 23

One of Donald Trump’s first proposals as president is to help businesses by cutting regulations by 75 percent. Trump cited environmental regulations as an example during a meeting with business leaders, but claimed he was a “very big person” on the environment who has “received awards on the environment.”

Trump touted his alleged environmental accolades as early as 2011, when he said during a “Fox and Friends” interview, “I’ve received many, many environmental awards.” He repeatedly claimed this during the 2016 presidential campaign: “I’ve won many environmental awards, by the way. I’ve actually been called an environmentalist, if you can believe that.”

Are there any facts to support this claim to environmental fame?

The Facts

The short answer is: No. Media outlets and environmental groups have tried to find evidence of this claim since 2011 but have come up short. We could not readily find references to Trump’s environmental awards in news coverage over the past 10 years. We checked with the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club, and none had any record of Trump’s environmental awards.

 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

5 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

I see them as little more than a mouthpiece of our Govt now, with little or no journalistic standards. And I think that's a shame.

I disagree. I think the BBC is remarkable, based purely by the way it's viewed by all sides. It's one of the better news organisations in the world, bias-wise.

I have to agree here,  the BBC is far ahead of any other news organisation I know of that is Global.

I channel hop the news channels and it's not until you see the others that one realises we are very lucky indeed.  For all it's faults it is easily the best broadcaster in the world,  easily without competition and they all know it.

[tonyh29]

3 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

The second major event was an appearance by Obama after the killing of Bin Laden, when he went to the CIA to thank the ppl there for their often anonymous sacrifices that led to that success in the fight against terrorism. Again, solemn and fitting with the meaning of the room. Both Bush and Obama paid deep homage to those honored in the book and by the stars. CIA employees listened respectfully, but did not turn the events into rallies.

That's a little selective is it not ?  ... he conveniently doesn't mention the third occasion ( I assume its the third, there could of course be others)  which is the video I linked to with the cheering and behaviour identical to what Trump is being chastised for

by the way the occasion he refers to(Bin Laden address)  starts with lots of cheering and clapping , though only at the beginning it does then become a quieter affair

 

3 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Then, Trump. He has the audacity to bring people from his team to cheer for him and sit in the front rows. I can't imagine CIA employees cheering and whooping it up at Memorial Wall. It would be like screaming "BOO-yah!" at a funeral

so on the basis that A) we have a video of Obama with cheering and whooping crowds and B.) from your own evidence quoted above  "CIA employees wouldn't be cheering and whooping it up at a memorial wall "  ... we therefore have to deduce that Obama brought along his own people to cheer for him or the author of this piece is talking bollocks

Interesting the video I linked to of Obama  has the same Laughter that you described as  "canned" for Trump yesterday ... but I guess nobody is interested in that

 

[Davkaus]

4 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Sorry for triple post, but like clockwork...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/24/trumps-unsupported-claim-he-has-received-awards-on-the-environment/?postshare=6261485262037636&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.d22836c5887e

 

It's basically a media DDoS. Throw as much crazy shit out there as possible and they can't cover it all properly. 

[StefanAVFC]

6 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

That's a little selective is it not ?  ... he conveniently doesn't mention the third occasion ( I assume its the third, there could of course be others)  which is the video I linked to with the cheering and behaviour identical to what Trump is being chastised for

by the way the occasion he refers to(Bin Laden address)  starts with lots of cheering and clapping , though only at the beginning it does then become a quieter affair

 

so on the basis that A) we have a video of Obama with cheering and whooping crowds and B.) from your own evidence quoted above  "CIA employees wouldn't be cheering and whooping it up at a memorial wall "  ... we therefore have to deduce that Obama brought along his own people to cheer for him or the author of this piece is talking bollocks

Interesting the video I linked to of Obama  has the same Laughter that you described as  "canned" for Trump yesterday ... but I guess nobody is interested in that

 

The bolded (which is pretty much your entire point), how can you not see the difference in occasion between Obama, post Bin-Laden's death and Trump, post-comparing them to Nazis with regards to cheering?

Even past that key difference, in tone, Trump's speech was a campaign rally, Obama's was a presidential speech post-America's most wanted being killed.

From your arguments, one would presume that you haven't watched either in their entirety otherwise you wouldn't be so vigorous in your defence. It was horrifying. Did you see what they were 'laughing at'? "I'm sure you all voted for me, I won't ask you to put your hands up". Can you imagine Obama saying something as sinister as that? And then the CIA laughing about it?

4 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

It's basically a media DDoS. Throw as much crazy shit out there as possible and they can't cover it all properly. 

I posted it previously. The Firehose of Falsehood. It's not as if it's a new tactic so I don't understand people trying to claim he's just a liar like other politicians.

Edited January 24, 2017 by StefanAVFC

[VILLAMARV]

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

I disagree. I think the BBC is remarkable, based purely by the way it's viewed by all sides. It's one of the better news organisations in the world, bias-wise.

You used to be able to spot a false story put out by the CIA for example by checking to see what version of the story the BBC were running or if they ran with it at all. It used to be common for them not to participate in the propaganda line of various stories. Most notably in my lifetime Chavez being overthrown in Venezuela where the BBC ran with the story but left out the assigning of blame like the American press did (Which subsequently turned out to be CIA nonsense exposed by French journalists who uncovered the story). Nuances like that in the way they choose to report the facts are the things I'm referring to mainly. Sticking to the facts was where their reputation was forged.

Look at the difference in a programme like Question Time before Thatcher got broadsided by that lovely lady in the 80's and after. We just have this watered down preprepared nonsense now whereas it masquerades as a chance for the people to ask the politicians stuff. The reality now is, if you want to be in the crowd you will give your details along with your question in advance to be screened beforehand. In their general news coverage the right wing bias is also just plain to see but also the subject of university papers now starting to prove their coverage is anything but unbiased (Cardiff University I believe). I saw an interview with Rageh Omar where he spoke of his disenchantment at realising he was an embedded journalist during the Iraq war and the restrictions that placed on him to actually report the facts as a major reason for quitting the BBC.

It may well still be one of the better ones. Just I see a drop in standards and like I said I think that's a shame.

[tonyh29]

9 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Obama's was a presidential speech post-America's most wanted being killed

No it wasn't  they are 2 different events

his Bin laden Speech was in May 2011  ..the video I linked to was April 2009

the April 2009 is the one that has the canned laughter (I assume it must be canned by your own research on Trumps laughter track  )

 

9 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

"I'm sure you all voted for me, I won't ask you to put your hands up". Can you imagine Obama saying something as sinister

Sinister  

Edited January 24, 2017 by tonyh29

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, VILLAMARV said:

Look at the difference in a programme like Question Time before Thatcher got broadsided by that lovely lady in the 80's and after. 

 

Agree with this. It's a load of softball bollocks now.

1 minute ago, VILLAMARV said:

It may well still be one of the better ones. Just I see a drop in standards and like I said I think that's a shame.

Thinking about it, my original post is more damning of the rest of the world than celebratory of the BBC. Hopefully they sort out their shit now, especially in the States because the US needs it.

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

No it wasn't  they are 2 different events

his Bin laden Speech was in May 2011  ..the video I linked to was April 2009

the April 2009 is the one that has the canned laughter (I assume it must be canned by your own research on Trumps laughter track  )

 

My mistake.

However, it doesn't change the point being made.

In 8 years, was Obama ever accused of bringing in his own people just to laugh and cheer? Trump has been 'accused' (for want of a better word, you'd be blind to not acknowledge it is happening) twice in two weeks of doing this. At his press conference (reported by multiple members of the media) and at the CIA (reported by CIA officials)

Are they liars?

[VILLAMARV]

Also to be unbiased in my own way the BBC still provide a mouthpiece for people like Adam Curtis. For that we should be thankful yes?

We also all know that his documentaries are hidden away somewhere in the annuls of the search function on their website. What does that tell you? Have they ever been screened prime time on the channels? Because stuff like that was what panorama used to push out, now that particular programme is a laughing stock journalistically. But if they cancelled Eastenders one night and chucked Hypernormalisation on for the masses wouldn't that be a fine thing for the world.

They also in keeping it on topic gave a mouthpiece for Greg Palast via Newsnight after he was banned from appearing on American TV. His letters to America were great. The BBC done that. Again, well done. Things to celebrate. What do you mean it was 20 years ago?

[VILLAMARV]

37 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

I have to agree here,  the BBC is far ahead of any other news organisation I know of that is Global.

I channel hop the news channels and it's not until you see the others that one realises we are very lucky indeed.  For all it's faults it is easily the best broadcaster in the world,  easily without competition and they all know it.

I love being abroad and getting the world service version of the TV news. It's a shame we don't just get that here. Loads less mates on the sofa filling time advertising Apple products in segments masquerading as technology news and the like.