|
|
Post by pete on Nov 11, 2024 15:15:48 GMT
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 11, 2024 15:22:06 GMT
Yep, you do like having a go at people, making up even more stuff to do it. I haven’t suggested there is anything wrong with wanting him to lose, and there is nothing in them that is even slightly pleased at his victory. It is just the old cheap shot one sometimes sees when people don’t confine scrutiny to one side. People got the same crap if they were critical of Blair. “You just want the Tories to win” etc. You can’t seem to discuss what we were discussing, you mostly want to make up more stuff to have a go at That said we can agree reforming funding might be an idea. Until that happens though, we have to deal with the unfortunate reality as it is... We already went down the road of what happened to Twitter and I haven’t seen anyone disagree... Hmm, you need a hug? Sorry pete, I’m a bit busy, you’ll have to find someone else. You could try mercian , if his shower issue has been resolved |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,574
|
Post by pjw1961 on Nov 11, 2024 15:27:41 GMT
But Musk bought Twitter and made it a right wing propaganda tool. That is essentially the modern version of Murdoch buying up left leaning papers like the Sun and making them right wing in the days when newspapers really mattered. Billionaires funding the Democrats is not an argument against my point. I said the oligarchs own political parties (plural). That's the point - Republicans or Democrats; Conservative, Labour or Reform, the interests of the super-rich will always be catered for. I didn’t argue against your point. Indeed I reinforced it by talking about how the democrats got more money. That said, while Musk turned Twitter in favour of Trump, it had previously been rather against Trump to the extent it banned him. And a lot of mainstream media are obviously pro democrat. Also, wasn’t the Sun originally the Herald, a paper of the left? "I didn’t argue against your point." No, but that was the implication of colin gleefully pointing out that billionaires also fund the Democrats. That was what I was responding to. "And a lot of mainstream media are obviously pro democrat." Are they or are they just part of what a Republican referred to as "the reality based community"? I.e. in a post-fact world, traditional media find themselves on the side of the remaining enlightenment values/science based parties whether they mean to be or not. "Also, wasn’t the Sun originally the Herald, a paper of the left?" - exactly; that was the point I was making about Murdoch. The Sun actually advocated Labour as late as 1970. In 1974 it called for a "government of national unity". It was only in 1979 that it completed its journey to pro-Conservative and populist, nationalist right-wing Conservatism at that. Apart from Murdoch's 1997 deal with Blair, there it has remained ever since. |
|
|
|
Post by pete on Nov 11, 2024 15:31:02 GMT
Sorry pete , I’m a bit busy, you’ll have to find someone else. You could try mercian , if his shower issue has been resolved No thanks Think i'll give Mercian a miss. If even his own wife doesn't want to whiff him... |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 11, 2024 15:37:58 GMT
I didn’t argue against your point. Indeed I reinforced it by talking about how the democrats got more money. That said, while Musk turned Twitter in favour of Trump, it had previously been rather against Trump to the extent it banned him. And a lot of mainstream media are obviously pro democrat. Also, wasn’t the Sun originally the Herald, a paper of the left? "And a lot of mainstream media are obviously pro democrat." Are they or are they just part of what a Republican referred to as "the reality based community". I.e. in a post-fact world, traditional media find themselves on the side of the remaining enlightment values/science based parties whether they mean to be or not. Ah, so if they are partisan, it’s just being fair and scientific?! You struggle to find any media that reliably does such science-based objective stuff. The media tend toward various forms of the liberal regardless. Often ignoring rational left wing arguments for example. How often do you see a paper follow a balanced line on the EU? The Guardian don’t pretend as to their alliegiance, are avowedly liberal and supported austerity: do you think austerity is science-backed rationalism? and in the US, the cheerleading for one side is quite often barely disguised I’m not saying it never happens, but it isn’t that common for issues to be explored in a proper rational fashion, where they pull together all the pros and all the cons of all the different positions and weigh them properly against each other. Partly because it can be very hard to do. Occasionally they might pay lip service to it, but it may only superficial. And as you know, a lot of media is owned by oligarchs, who have their own agendas, rather than being science-based, as it were. Many mainstream media articles are way too lightweight even if not outright partisan to give a fair representation of many things, which is why people increasingly look elsewhere nowadays. One thing the liberal press don’t tend to explore, for example, and which is quite key given the results of the US election, is the full impact of immigration, for example. (And even in the world of science itself, it’s not unusual to get a skewed rather than more objective assessment). this is part of the reason why we’re here. When we get really stuck into something, between us we can quite often explore it in a far more detailed and balanced fashion than you’re likely to find in the media very often. I have learned all sorts here that I don’t see in the media. And when I used to post on comment sections like the Graun, the regular contributors below the line might shred quite assiduously some journo’s article in minutes. Used to feel a bit sorry for them sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 11, 2024 16:13:06 GMT
"I didn’t argue against your point." No, but that was the implication of colin gleefully pointing out that billionaires also fund the Democrats. "And a lot of mainstream media are obviously pro democrat." Are they or are they just part of what a Republican referred to as "the reality based community"? I.e. in a post-fact world, traditional media find themselves on the side of the remaining enlightenment values/science based parties whether they mean to be or not. Why do you characterise my post as "gleeful".? Is anyone who thinks the Democrats made an almighty mess of this election being "gleeful".? There will be very little glee around-certainly not outside the USA. What happens inside the USA is-as far as I am concerned-a matter for US voters. So your second paragraph above reads like you believe the US Media is one of two things-Republican supporting or Truthful.!!! The air of superiority people like you wave around is unbelievable. I know nothing of the great sweep of media in USA , But I do watch CNN. And it leans very strongly towards Democrats. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 11, 2024 16:19:16 GMT
"I didn’t argue against your point." No, but that was the implication of colin gleefully pointing out that billionaires also fund the Democrats. "And a lot of mainstream media are obviously pro democrat." Are they or are they just part of what a Republican referred to as "the reality based community"? I.e. in a post-fact world, traditional media find themselves on the side of the remaining enlightenment values/science based parties whether they mean to be or not. So your second paragraph above reads like you believe the US Media is one of two things-Republican supporting or Truthful.!!! It’s a relief to learn that Democrat-supporting media never knowingly slant things or even make innocent errors or omissions with unintentional bias and their billionaire owners are entirely fragrant with no globalist economic agendas. Because the coverage I saw during the election was quite eye-opening, and you can see why they struggle for viewers "I didn’t argue against your point." No, but that was the implication of colin gleefully pointing out that billionaires also fund the Democrats. "And a lot of mainstream media are obviously pro democrat." Are they or are they just part of what a Republican referred to as "the reality based community"? I.e. in a post-fact world, traditional media find themselves on the side of the remaining enlightenment values/science based parties whether they mean to be or not. Why do you characterise my post as "gleeful".? Is anyone who thinks the Democrats made an almighty mess of this election being "gleeful".? It doesn’t alter the truth of it even if you were gleeful. You could be happy as Larry about it, or indeed utterly dismayed, and it wouldn’t alter the fact that you have these oligarchs owning chunks of the media, and funding parties and they don’t just support one party. Things can tend toward a certain religiosity at times, where there are certain texts considered perfect and holy and not to be challenged in any way else a plague of locusts may come, while other texts are considered entirely without merit, and heathen and profane. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,644
|
Post by steve on Nov 11, 2024 16:58:48 GMT
House result still on a knife edge.
Currently 203:214
Democrats reasonably certain of 6 more the republicans 3 .All other 9 districts still in play with no margin over 2.5% and 6 under 1%
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,644
|
Post by steve on Nov 11, 2024 17:05:16 GMT
peteThe source of this entirely speculative report has had no involvement with the trump campaign team and ceased to be a senior cult member in 2019. She's probably just saying what the reporter wanted to hear.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,574
|
Post by pjw1961 on Nov 11, 2024 17:18:54 GMT
"And a lot of mainstream media are obviously pro democrat." Are they or are they just part of what a Republican referred to as "the reality based community"? I.e. in a post-fact world, traditional media find themselves on the side of the remaining enlightenment values/science based parties whether they mean to be or not. So your second paragraph above reads like you believe the US Media is one of two things-Republican supporting or Truthful.!!! The air of superiority people like you wave around is unbelievable. I know nothing of the great sweep of media in USA , But I do watch CNN. And it leans very strongly towards Democrats. The incoming administration: Specifically rejects climate science Specifically rejects public health science (both the standard version and alec's revisionist one) Seemingly is prepared to go anti-vaccine and put the health of millions at risk Intends to demolish environmental protections, again putting the health of millions at risk - www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/11/environmental-protection-agency-staff-react-trump-second-termMy point is that you don't have to be some sort of leftie, liberal, profoundly scientific or even truthful to fall foul of the new order. Just being a rational, fact-based person, institution or media outlet means you are now an enemy, liable to be sacked from your job (see the linked article on scientists being told to rig their findings or be dismissed) or have your licence to operate questioned, as Trump has done with multiple media outlets. We are watching the death of the enlightenment and a return to government by superstition. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 11, 2024 17:49:44 GMT
So your second paragraph above reads like you believe the US Media is one of two things-Republican supporting or Truthful.!!! The air of superiority people like you wave around is unbelievable. I know nothing of the great sweep of media in USA , But I do watch CNN. And it leans very strongly towards Democrats. The incoming administration: Specifically rejects climate science Specifically rejects public health science (both the standard version and alec's revisionist one) Seemingly is prepared to go anti-vaccine and put the health of millions at risk Intends to demolish environmental protections, again putting the health of millions at risk - www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/11/environmental-protection-agency-staff-react-trump-second-termMy point is that you don't have to be some sort of leftie, liberal, profoundly scientific or even truthful to fall foul of the new order. Just being a rational, fact-based person, institution or media outlet means you are now an enemy, liable to be sacked from your job (see the linked article on scientists being told to rig their findings or be dismissed) or have your licence to operate questioned, as Trump has done with multiple media outlets. We are watching the death of the enlightenment and a return to government by superstition. interesting topic, though it’s a pivot away from the issue concerning oligarchs funding and democrat media bias. (Such an issue long pre-dates Trump and may well be an issue long after any anti-enlightenment Trumpism). Do you not have any concerns about the vaccines then? |
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 11, 2024 17:58:06 GMT
So your second paragraph above reads like you believe the US Media is one of two things-Republican supporting or Truthful.!!! The air of superiority people like you wave around is unbelievable. I know nothing of the great sweep of media in USA , But I do watch CNN. And it leans very strongly towards Democrats. The incoming administration: Specifically rejects climate science Specifically rejects public health science (both the standard version and alec's revisionist one) Seemingly is prepared to go anti-vaccine and put the health of millions at risk Intends to demolish environmental protections, again putting the health of millions at risk - www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/11/environmental-protection-agency-staff-react-trump-second-termMy point is that you don't have to be some sort of leftie, liberal, profoundly scientific or even truthful to fall foul of the new order. Just being a rational, fact-based person, institution or media outlet means you are now an enemy, liable to be sacked from your job (see the linked article on scientists being told to rig their findings or be dismissed) or have your licence to operate questioned, as Trump has done with multiple media outlets. We are watching the death of the enlightenment and a return to government by superstition. I think you are confusing criticism of Republicans with balanced political reporting. Balanced reporting requires critical examination of both parties. Which rarely exists-and this perception of US media political bias looks fairly well......balanced to me :- guides.library.harvard.edu/newsleans/thechart |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 11, 2024 18:02:22 GMT
The incoming administration: Specifically rejects climate science Specifically rejects public health science (both the standard version and alec's revisionist one) Seemingly is prepared to go anti-vaccine and put the health of millions at risk Intends to demolish environmental protections, again putting the health of millions at risk - www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/11/environmental-protection-agency-staff-react-trump-second-termMy point is that you don't have to be some sort of leftie, liberal, profoundly scientific or even truthful to fall foul of the new order. Just being a rational, fact-based person, institution or media outlet means you are now an enemy, liable to be sacked from your job (see the linked article on scientists being told to rig their findings or be dismissed) or have your licence to operate questioned, as Trump has done with multiple media outlets. We are watching the death of the enlightenment and a return to government by superstition. I think you are confusing criticism of Republicans with balanced political reporting. Balanced reporting requires critical examination of both parties. Which rarely exists-and this perception of US media political bias looks fairly well......balanced to me :- guides.library.harvard.edu/newsleans/thechartYep, in other words, of course it’s fine to call out genuine Republican negatives. But would they hype some negatives, or fail to point out some Republican positives? Or gloss over Democrat negatives while hyping their positives? As opposed to evaluating more fairly? Not too much of the media passes that kind of test, whoever they support. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,364
|
Post by Danny on Nov 11, 2024 18:29:36 GMT
Remember that a great many of those who voted for Trump were not struggling or ‘just about managing’. The Republican Party remains that of the wealthy, for the obvious and unchanged reason that they are the ones who will actually benefit from him being in office. But the gains which gave them victory were not from the rich. Just as Farage bought Johnson a victory on the back of brexit, so Trump bought the republican party a victory. Or more accurately since Trump is now president again, Trump used the republican right and the votes of the rich to give him the victory. Maybe, and you give an example of this. However I think its pretty straightforward how he won. The rich are likely happier with a republican president, so that the traditonal wealthy rep vote sewn up. I presume in the US the proportion regarding themselves as wealthy is falling, just as it is in the UK. Your stock investing friends are not typical citizens. They are not the poorer half of the nation. So maybe just 15-20% of the nation voted rep on this basis. The rest though was drawn from the 'rust belt'. SO lets say 5-10% of the population, was the poor who have seen their lives and their relatives and their neighbourhoods getting poorer for 50 years. It isnt misinformation. They have lived this. Since before the internet was invented. Meanwhile the dems seem likely to be whats left of the middle wealthy. Those groups still with decent living standards, and a social conscience. Who believe in good works and trying to help the poor, just not too much. They have had power off and on over that last 50 years, and did nothing to reverse the trend of wealth moving away from the bottom 50%. Not that its a steady 50%, the percentage doing badly has steadily increased over that 50 years, and thats exactly why the dems can no longer command a majority. This isnt just since 2008. Blair beat Major because of declining state services, and the drive away from wealth distribution (state services ARE wealth redistribution). Then just as Blair was maybe making it look like trickle down economics might just work, along came the great US bank's securities fraud which nearly brought down the entire world financial system. Growth has not recovered since, because that growth was mostly puff from financial dealings, which were constrained by law ever since. Well maybe they too see that the ladder is being pulled up above them, and unless something changes the US isnt going to be a place worth living in. |
|
jib
Member
Posts: 3,003
Member is Online
|
Post by jib on Nov 11, 2024 18:51:03 GMT
I think you are confusing criticism of Republicans with balanced political reporting. Balanced reporting requires critical examination of both parties. Which rarely exists-and this perception of US media political bias looks fairly well......balanced to me :- guides.library.harvard.edu/newsleans/thechartYep, in other words, of course it’s fine to call out genuine Republican negatives. But would they hype some negatives, or fail to point out some Republican positives? Or gloss over Democrat negatives while hyping their positives? As opposed to evaluating more fairly? Not too much of the media passes that kind of test, whoever they support. There was quite a lot riding on this election wasn't there? It literally was win or bust (bust as in prison) for Trump. A real illustration that the winner gets to write the history book, and his is going to be embellished now. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 11, 2024 18:59:50 GMT
Yep, in other words, of course it’s fine to call out genuine Republican negatives. But would they hype some negatives, or fail to point out some Republican positives? Or gloss over Democrat negatives while hyping their positives? As opposed to evaluating more fairly? Not too much of the media passes that kind of test, whoever they support. There was quite a lot riding on this election wasn't there? It literally was win or bust (bust as in prison) for Trump. A real illustration that the winner gets to write the history book, and his is going to be embellished now. Well, could be, though past winners didn’t always do so great in the history book. Guess we shall be finding out. Thing is, people understandably focus on Trump, but there is that question of what happens after, of Vance being set up to take over as some speculate |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Nov 11, 2024 19:05:26 GMT
There was quite a lot riding on this election wasn't there? It literally was win or bust (bust as in prison) for Trump. A real illustration that the winner gets to write the history book, and his is going to be embellished now. Well, could be, though past winners didn’t always do so great in the history book. Guess we shall be finding out. Thing is, people understandably focus on Trump, but there is that question of what happens after, of Vance being set up to take over as some speculate I doubt that Trump cares who will be the next President unless he can fix things so it is one of his family.  |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 11, 2024 19:11:14 GMT
Well, could be, though past winners didn’t always do so great in the history book. Guess we shall be finding out. Thing is, people understandably focus on Trump, but there is that question of what happens after, of Vance being set up to take over as some speculate I doubt that Trump cares who will be the next President unless he can fix things so it is one of his family. Yes, there is that… |
|
|
|
Post by turk on Nov 11, 2024 19:12:28 GMT
Pjw1961
Watching the death of enlightenment.
Is that the same enlightenment that calls anybody concerned about immigration a racist. Or the same enlightenment that bans speakers from Universities because students might be upset.Or the same enlightenment that wants to rewrite history because it offends some people. Or the death of enlightenment that sends people to jail for making comments on the internet whilst letting sex offenders go free.
You need to wake up when your talking about enlightenment instead of looking at it from a left wing point of view ,political correctness has done far more damage to enlightenment and freedom that Trump and his cronies are ever likely to do.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,364
|
Post by Danny on Nov 11, 2024 19:28:13 GMT
Why do you characterise my post as "gleeful".? Is anyone who thinks the Democrats made an almighty mess of this election being "gleeful".? Did they make an almighty mess? There are three clear groups in society, and this seems general all around the developed world. Calling them left or ight is not helpful. Theres the rich, and all they can bring on board with policies helping the most affluent in society. the traditional conservatives or republicans. Then theres the middle, people of more ordinary wealth, so bought their house, got a pension to look forward too, can afford a nice car and holidays. They are interested in policies to maintain their position, got a social conscience, want to help the poor but not to the extent of bankrupting themselves. These are the labour or democrat voters. And then theres the actual poor. Least likely to vote. Various measures to alienate them from the political process such as the poll tax. Both Trump and Farage played the game of getting the actual poor to vote for them. Because while historically they might have looked to the dems or labour, we just had an election here where Lab turned away from traditional left wing policies which might help the poor. Because, after all, they are the party of the rich middle. |
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 11, 2024 19:31:33 GMT
Why do you characterise my post as "gleeful".? Is anyone who thinks the Democrats made an almighty mess of this election being "gleeful".? Did they make an almighty mess? They fucking lost to fucking Trump !!!! I mean what would you call it ? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,364
|
Post by Danny on Nov 11, 2024 19:38:53 GMT
Pjw1961 Watching the death of enlightenment. Is that the same enlightenment that calls anybody concerned about immigration a racist. Or the same enlightenment that bans speakers from Universities because students might be upset.Or the same enlightenment that wants to rewrite history because it offends some people. Or the death of enlightenment that sends people to jail for making comments on the internet whilst letting sex offenders go free. You need to wake up when your talking about enlightenment instead of looking at it from a left wing point of view ,political correctness has done far more damage to enlightenment and freedom that Trump and his cronies are ever likely to do. Hi Turk, I think you might be a touch over the top with the sex offenders, I think they were a category excepted from the recent waves of letting people out of jail for lack of space. But overall gave your post a like, because we so seem to be living in a victory of form over substance. Politics has become a sleight of hand where you do have a genuine group whose interests you are furthering, but after that its a huge sham trying to appeal to people who frankly would be better off founding their own political part. Except of course FPP is deliberately weighted to make that as difficult as possible. The art of democracy is in making it impossible to create a new party which might be representative of the masses. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,364
|
Post by Danny on Nov 11, 2024 19:48:46 GMT
Did they make an almighty mess? They fucking lost to fucking Trump !!!! I mean what would you call it ? It was a close result, where their 1/4 of the eligible voters was not much smaller than Trump's 1/4 of eligible voters. In making sure the 50%+ who didnt vote for either...continue to not vote for either, that was a huge success. And maybe the 25% voting for Trump had more in commone with dems, than the 50% who didnt vote for anyone. And what IS the difference betwen the two sides? Neither is likely to much help the 50%. The two broadly agree they want to stop illegal immigration. They probably both secretly agree they desperately want the Ukraine war to end in any manner which can be arranged. They are both afraid to cut state services too much. Or raise taxes too much. Neither will tax the very rich. They agree China is dominating the US economy too much, and this needs to end. Both candidates were evently matched geriatrics, but then one side switched theirs out and got a black woman instead, thereby alienating a lot of voters. Moreover, one who had been a law enforcement official whereas many who did vote for Trump probably felt safer with a known criminal. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,574
|
Post by pjw1961 on Nov 11, 2024 19:51:19 GMT
We are watching the death of the enlightenment and a return to government by superstition. Do you not have any concerns about the vaccines then? No. They are one of the greatest medical advances of all human history. I have had every vaccine available (including flu and covid last week) and had my children vaccinated for everything as well. Yes, there is a tiny element of risk as there is to every medical treatment ever devised (including all the quack ones) but the diseases are far more dangerous. |
|
|
|
Post by mark61 on Nov 11, 2024 19:55:49 GMT
Pjw1961 Watching the death of enlightenment. Is that the same enlightenment that calls anybody concerned about immigration a racist. Or the same enlightenment that bans speakers from Universities because students might be upset.Or the same enlightenment that wants to rewrite history because it offends some people. Or the death of enlightenment that sends people to jail for making comments on the internet whilst letting sex offenders go free. You need to wake up when your talking about enlightenment instead of looking at it from a left wing point of view ,political correctness has done far more damage to enlightenment and freedom that Trump and his cronies are ever likely to do. Here we go again, any chance of supporting your assertions withs some evidence? Give me an example of Someone sent to Gaol for making comments on the internet which did not involve breaking the Law of the Land (or can we now choose which we obey?) whilst letting sex offenders go free. Does anybody concerned about immigration get called a racist, or do they get called a racist when they make racist comments when they discuss Immigration. Does The enlightenment as you see it really want to re-write history because it offends people? or is it just part of the process of re-examination that happens generation after generation, why are you so challenged by that process are you so wedded to the History of Britain's glorious imperial past you were taught at school in the the !950's or 60's that you have a paddy when historians point out that there were inglorious episodes within it, does it ruin your day when you visit a Stately Home and are reminded it was built from wealth gained in the slave trade? Trump is a Climate crisis denier, he was a quack science follower during the Covid pandemic, He believes in alternative facts, he can't count the number of supporters at his rallies, last time he comprehensively lost the Election in 2020 he refused to accept the result, and tried to overturn the result, he is about to pull the rug on Ukraine and cosy up to Putin, but apparently Political Correctness whatever that is according to you has done far more damage to the enlightenment than Trump is ever likely to do. Time to show us your workings out Turk, or people may conclude your just posting rubbish. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,574
|
Post by pjw1961 on Nov 11, 2024 19:56:45 GMT
We are watching the death of the enlightenment and a return to government by superstition. I think you are confusing criticism of Republicans with balanced political reporting. Balanced reporting requires critical examination of both parties. Which rarely exists-and this perception of US media political bias looks fairly well......balanced to me :- guides.library.harvard.edu/newsleans/thechartBut how do you have balance between fiction and reality? It is the same logic as used to make the BBC have one distinguished scientist explaining the evidence based scientific consensus on climate change and someone like the late Lord Lawson talking complete bollocks (with a financial agenda that never got a mention) and think that represented "balance". At least they seem to have outgrown that nonsense. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,574
|
Post by pjw1961 on Nov 11, 2024 20:04:43 GMT
Pjw1961 Watching the death of enlightenment. Is that the same enlightenment that calls anybody concerned about immigration a racist. Or the same enlightenment that bans speakers from Universities because students might be upset.Or the same enlightenment that wants to rewrite history because it offends some people. Or the death of enlightenment that sends people to jail for making comments on the internet whilst letting sex offenders go free. You need to wake up when your talking about enlightenment instead of looking at it from a left wing point of view ,political correctness has done far more damage to enlightenment and freedom that Trump and his cronies are ever likely to do. Speak for yourself, I don't do any of those things. I am a socialist. I am far, far more interested in economic equality than the social sort, although I don't object to it. However, incitement to mass murder has always been a criminal offence I believe, even before the enlightenment. As you live in the US you'll find out what Trump's anti-rationalism agenda will do. Fingers crossed it proves hard to implement in practice or it will create much unnecessary suffering. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Nov 11, 2024 20:31:08 GMT
Nate Silver, US polling guru Updated estimate: Harris 76.2m votes (48.4%) Trump 78.5m votes (49.9%) other 2.6m votes (1.5%) Total turnout 157.3m votes (vs 158.6m in 2020) Trump margin +1.5% Which makes it the closest US Election result for a long time But not in the Electoral College. And only because the Republicans won! When the Democrats win the country share of vote is never close... |
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 11, 2024 20:42:38 GMT
I think you are confusing criticism of Republicans with balanced political reporting. Balanced reporting requires critical examination of both parties. Which rarely exists-and this perception of US media political bias looks fairly well......balanced to me :- guides.library.harvard.edu/newsleans/thechartBut how do you have balance between fiction and reality? You are taking far too lofty a stance on this . Because Trump denies science doesn't mean that Biden always tells the truth politically. Because Trump lies a lot doesn't mean that Biden never does. All parties indulge in fiction-saying that they have achieved things which they havent. Blaming failures on factors which were irrelevant . Twisting the facts to suit their purposes. All parties do this. The media should critically analyse all of it in their political reporting. They don't apply balance when they have a preferred political party. Which, to varying degrees, seems to be the norm. I provided a link to the political bias of media in USA |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Nov 11, 2024 20:44:14 GMT
They really aren't- certainly in terms of civilian deaths. 43,000 civilian deaths in Palestine over one year, almost certainly hugely underestimated, and 70% of those deaths are women and children. 12,000 civilian deaths in Ukraine over two and a half years Much of Palestine has been turned to rubble. Ukraine is largely still standing. War crimes are off the scale in Palestine. The Russians have committed war crimes but nothing like on that scale. We can agree that Russia is the clear aggressor whereas Israel had more of an excuse but beyond that I don't think there is any comparison and certainly Russia is not going to be found guilty of genocide. |
|
