45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 2
Discussion
Mr Snrub said:
paulguitar said:
I saw much of the Trump speech, it was much more ’normal’ as roundly predicted, just him calmly reading from an autocue. It seems weird to hear him denouncing hate crimes though, since an increase is surely to be expected from a lot the things he has said, and the encouragement of violence at his rallies when he was candidate,
I did get the feeling that the real Trump was frustrated inside himself somewhere. For now though, indeed, he seems to be under control. Someone has seemingly certainly had a word. To be fair, at times he seemed almost like a real President.
When did he do this?I did get the feeling that the real Trump was frustrated inside himself somewhere. For now though, indeed, he seems to be under control. Someone has seemingly certainly had a word. To be fair, at times he seemed almost like a real President.
The link is Daily Mail and the video is in the below link in case anyone tries to say its fake news.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3490126/Tr...
He actually said he would like to punch the guy in his face himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_WZGM6GSPA
“He’s smiling. See, he’s having a good time,” Trump said of a protester who was being escorted out by guards. “Oh, I love the old days, you know? You know what I hate? There’s a guy, totally disruptive, throwing punches, we’re not allowed to punch back anymore. I love the old days, you know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out in a stretcher, folks. Oh, it’s true.”
Trump went on to complain that “the guards are very gentle with him,” before saying, “I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you.”
Edited by p1stonhead on Wednesday 1st March 11:18
p1stonhead said:
paulguitar said:
dandarez said:
You mean just like sales of the Guardian - where that crap story is from - starting to slide?
Signs of a Guardian slump.
'Since you’re here …
The Guardian has got a small favour to ask.
More people are reading the Guardian than ever, but far fewer are paying for it.'
This is a superb example actually of how the Trump technique works on the weak-minded. The Guardian story here is factual, and mostly is simply quoting statistics from the likes of Kayak as to the numbers of specific USA based flights searched.Signs of a Guardian slump.
'Since you’re here …
The Guardian has got a small favour to ask.
More people are reading the Guardian than ever, but far fewer are paying for it.'
The Trump influenced mind, programmed with the mantra of ‘FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS’ when it sees something negative about the dear leader goes into meltdown, and it becomes about the ‘failing newspaper’ instead of what is actually being said. It is a fascinating thing to see.
Absolutely fascinating as you say.
La Liga said:
p1stonhead said:
paulguitar said:
dandarez said:
You mean just like sales of the Guardian - where that crap story is from - starting to slide?
Signs of a Guardian slump.
'Since you’re here …
The Guardian has got a small favour to ask.
More people are reading the Guardian than ever, but far fewer are paying for it.'
This is a superb example actually of how the Trump technique works on the weak-minded. The Guardian story here is factual, and mostly is simply quoting statistics from the likes of Kayak as to the numbers of specific USA based flights searched.Signs of a Guardian slump.
'Since you’re here …
The Guardian has got a small favour to ask.
More people are reading the Guardian than ever, but far fewer are paying for it.'
The Trump influenced mind, programmed with the mantra of ‘FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS’ when it sees something negative about the dear leader goes into meltdown, and it becomes about the ‘failing newspaper’ instead of what is actually being said. It is a fascinating thing to see.
Absolutely fascinating as you say.
Look back at the 'default' position on material from Breitbart, the Daily Mail etc acting as secondary sources. Attacking the source is far more routine where it doesn't fit with bien pensant politics.
In general terms we agree, in that I also regard attacking the source aka shootine the messenger as a fail.
p1stonhead said:
Mr Snrub said:
paulguitar said:
I saw much of the Trump speech, it was much more ’normal’ as roundly predicted, just him calmly reading from an autocue. It seems weird to hear him denouncing hate crimes though, since an increase is surely to be expected from a lot the things he has said, and the encouragement of violence at his rallies when he was candidate,
I did get the feeling that the real Trump was frustrated inside himself somewhere. For now though, indeed, he seems to be under control. Someone has seemingly certainly had a word. To be fair, at times he seemed almost like a real President.
When did he do this?I did get the feeling that the real Trump was frustrated inside himself somewhere. For now though, indeed, he seems to be under control. Someone has seemingly certainly had a word. To be fair, at times he seemed almost like a real President.
The link is Daily Mail and the video is in the below link in case anyone tries to say its fake news.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3490126/Tr...
He actually said he would like to punch the guy in his face himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_WZGM6GSPA
“He’s smiling. See, he’s having a good time,” Trump said of a protester who was being escorted out by guards. “Oh, I love the old days, you know? You know what I hate? There’s a guy, totally disruptive, throwing punches, we’re not allowed to punch back anymore. I love the old days, you know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out in a stretcher, folks. Oh, it’s true.”
Trump went on to complain that “the guards are very gentle with him,” before saying, “I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you.”
Edited by p1stonhead on Wednesday 1st March 11:18
Mr Snrub said:
p1stonhead said:
Mr Snrub said:
paulguitar said:
I saw much of the Trump speech, it was much more ’normal’ as roundly predicted, just him calmly reading from an autocue. It seems weird to hear him denouncing hate crimes though, since an increase is surely to be expected from a lot the things he has said, and the encouragement of violence at his rallies when he was candidate,
I did get the feeling that the real Trump was frustrated inside himself somewhere. For now though, indeed, he seems to be under control. Someone has seemingly certainly had a word. To be fair, at times he seemed almost like a real President.
When did he do this?I did get the feeling that the real Trump was frustrated inside himself somewhere. For now though, indeed, he seems to be under control. Someone has seemingly certainly had a word. To be fair, at times he seemed almost like a real President.
The link is Daily Mail and the video is in the below link in case anyone tries to say its fake news.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3490126/Tr...
He actually said he would like to punch the guy in his face himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_WZGM6GSPA
“He’s smiling. See, he’s having a good time,” Trump said of a protester who was being escorted out by guards. “Oh, I love the old days, you know? You know what I hate? There’s a guy, totally disruptive, throwing punches, we’re not allowed to punch back anymore. I love the old days, you know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out in a stretcher, folks. Oh, it’s true.”
Trump went on to complain that “the guards are very gentle with him,” before saying, “I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you.”
Edited by p1stonhead on Wednesday 1st March 11:18
Edited by p1stonhead on Wednesday 1st March 12:01
turbobloke said:
Deep irony.
Look back at the 'default' position on material from Breitbart, the Daily Mail etc acting as secondary sources. Attacking the source is far more routine where it doesn't fit with bien pensant politics.
In general terms we agree, in that I also regard attacking the source aka shootine the messenger as a fail.
AIUI the attack on Breitbart (& Zerohedge, et al, but not the DM) is for it overlaying its own home grown untruths on the source information.Look back at the 'default' position on material from Breitbart, the Daily Mail etc acting as secondary sources. Attacking the source is far more routine where it doesn't fit with bien pensant politics.
In general terms we agree, in that I also regard attacking the source aka shootine the messenger as a fail.
Now, where have you buried the bullet-ridden body of the BBC today, turbo?
Greg66 said:
turbobloke said:
Deep irony.
Look back at the 'default' position on material from Breitbart, the Daily Mail etc acting as secondary sources. Attacking the source is far more routine where it doesn't fit with bien pensant politics.
In general terms we agree, in that I also regard attacking the source aka shootine the messenger as a fail.
AIUI the attack on Breitbart (& Zerohedge, et al, but not the DM) is for it overlaying its own home grown untruths on the source information.Look back at the 'default' position on material from Breitbart, the Daily Mail etc acting as secondary sources. Attacking the source is far more routine where it doesn't fit with bien pensant politics.
In general terms we agree, in that I also regard attacking the source aka shootine the messenger as a fail.
BBC bias is in its own output, acting as a primary source via beeb correspondents being interviewed instead of independent commentators, and offering opinion as fact; also via online editorial content, and so on. Even you must appreciate the difference.
turbobloke said:
Greg66 said:
turbobloke said:
Deep irony.
Look back at the 'default' position on material from Breitbart, the Daily Mail etc acting as secondary sources. Attacking the source is far more routine where it doesn't fit with bien pensant politics.
In general terms we agree, in that I also regard attacking the source aka shootine the messenger as a fail.
AIUI the attack on Breitbart (& Zerohedge, et al, but not the DM) is for it overlaying its own home grown untruths on the source information.Look back at the 'default' position on material from Breitbart, the Daily Mail etc acting as secondary sources. Attacking the source is far more routine where it doesn't fit with bien pensant politics.
In general terms we agree, in that I also regard attacking the source aka shootine the messenger as a fail.
BBC bias is in its own output, acting as a primary source via beeb correspondents being interviewed instead of independent commentators, and offering opinion as fact; also via online editorial content, and so on. Even you must appreciate the difference.
Breitbart also wear their policial affiliations on their sleeve by selling t-shirts supporting Trump. How many other 'news' organisations are that blatant even if they may do it subtly?! They are admirally transparent but people try and quote them as an unbiased non 'fake' news source all the time which is ludicrous.
Edited by p1stonhead on Wednesday 1st March 12:18
If people are attacking Breitbart for example because of supposed overlaying, it's odd that they don't attack the overlays by extracting them, rather than "because Breitbart" and in any case my point - see post - specifically referred to secondary sources. Kindly RTFP.
The deep irony remains.
The deep irony remains.
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
p1stonhead said:
paulguitar said:
dandarez said:
You mean just like sales of the Guardian - where that crap story is from - starting to slide?
Signs of a Guardian slump.
'Since you’re here …
The Guardian has got a small favour to ask.
More people are reading the Guardian than ever, but far fewer are paying for it.'
This is a superb example actually of how the Trump technique works on the weak-minded. The Guardian story here is factual, and mostly is simply quoting statistics from the likes of Kayak as to the numbers of specific USA based flights searched.Signs of a Guardian slump.
'Since you’re here …
The Guardian has got a small favour to ask.
More people are reading the Guardian than ever, but far fewer are paying for it.'
The Trump influenced mind, programmed with the mantra of ‘FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS FAKE NEWS’ when it sees something negative about the dear leader goes into meltdown, and it becomes about the ‘failing newspaper’ instead of what is actually being said. It is a fascinating thing to see.
Absolutely fascinating as you say.
Look back at the 'default' position on material from Breitbart, the Daily Mail etc acting as secondary sources. Attacking the source is far more routine where it doesn't fit with bien pensant politics.
In general terms we agree, in that I also regard attacking the source aka shootine the messenger as a fail.
On the other hand, a source can get to a point where it acts with such misleading consistency that a doubt can be cast prior to reading the article. For example, if someone links a DM online article I would expect it highly likely it'd be misleading / driven to feed into the 'click-bait' business model. That wouldn't excuse going through the content, though.
turbobloke said:
This has almost certainly been posted already but in all the excitement I missed it...Trump's visit to the UK has been put back to October, something to do with protests against his freedom to speak in the UK iirc. Good old bien pensant politics.
Or not... http://news.sky.com/story/downing-street-says-no-d...
No date set as yet.
turbobloke said:
This has almost certainly been posted already but in all the excitement I missed it...Trump's visit to the UK has been put back to October, something to do with protests against his freedom to speak in the UK iirc. Good old bien pensant politics.
Nicely spun. Trump's decision because he wants to avoid unseemly protests. turbobloke said:
Greg66 said:
turbobloke said:
Deep irony.
Look back at the 'default' position on material from Breitbart, the Daily Mail etc acting as secondary sources. Attacking the source is far more routine where it doesn't fit with bien pensant politics.
In general terms we agree, in that I also regard attacking the source aka shootine the messenger as a fail.
AIUI the attack on Breitbart (& Zerohedge, et al, but not the DM) is for it overlaying its own home grown untruths on the source information.Look back at the 'default' position on material from Breitbart, the Daily Mail etc acting as secondary sources. Attacking the source is far more routine where it doesn't fit with bien pensant politics.
In general terms we agree, in that I also regard attacking the source aka shootine the messenger as a fail.
BBC bias is in its own output, acting as a primary source via beeb correspondents being interviewed instead of independent commentators, and offering opinion as fact; also via online editorial content, and so on.
That said, I am not sure I agree with the breadth of your point: eg interviewing a correspondent in (say) a war zone or Washington (for the time being different) about what is going on there isn't offering that correspondent as a primary source of facts. It is offering the correspondent as a vehicle to report what has been collected by the correspondent. I can't bring to mind an example of one misrepresenting their personal opinion as fact.
It's no different to having a journalist write a printed article instead of editing together a series of eye witness reports and printing those. Newspapers have never operated in the latter way, so why should TV/online news be different?
I'm also not really familiar with online editorial content - editorials necessarily being opinion pieces - being offered as fact. Perhaps you have specific examples in mind. I don't know.
As it's lunchtime!
Apologies for interrupting normal programming. I'm sure most of you are aware of Mr Serafinowicz, but couldn't help myself anyway!
https://youtu.be/yNHNtXwtpBE
Apologies for interrupting normal programming. I'm sure most of you are aware of Mr Serafinowicz, but couldn't help myself anyway!
https://youtu.be/yNHNtXwtpBE
ash73 said:
Stayed up to watch it, delivery was very slick but any nutcase can appear normal with preparation and practice. The bits where he ad-libbed were glaringly obvious.
Actual content of the speech was disturbing; overt protectionism (remember BL in the 70's?), raising import duties (and USA is the UK's main export market, just when we need a good trade deal with Brexit), massive and unnecessary spend on military, $1 trillion spend on infrastructure - where is the money coming from, tax cuts for the comfortable middle class versus reductions to welfare and overseas aid means those that need it most will get nothing, massive reduction in regulation (arbitary 2 for 1 rule), people seem to forget regulation is there to protect citizens and they learned nothing from the banking crisis, scrapping the new healthcare initiative replacing care for all with buy what you want, and he's actually going to build the "great" wall across the Southern border. Basically a racist buying votes with jobs and flag waving. Not good.
Any mention of the elusive renewed immigration executive order?Actual content of the speech was disturbing; overt protectionism (remember BL in the 70's?), raising import duties (and USA is the UK's main export market, just when we need a good trade deal with Brexit), massive and unnecessary spend on military, $1 trillion spend on infrastructure - where is the money coming from, tax cuts for the comfortable middle class versus reductions to welfare and overseas aid means those that need it most will get nothing, massive reduction in regulation (arbitary 2 for 1 rule), people seem to forget regulation is there to protect citizens and they learned nothing from the banking crisis, scrapping the new healthcare initiative replacing care for all with buy what you want, and he's actually going to build the "great" wall across the Southern border. Basically a racist buying votes with jobs and flag waving. Not good.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 1st March 13:33
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff