45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 3
Discussion
Boydie88 said:
Byker28i said:
Boydie88 said:
And I think you're missing the point that more and more people turn away from News sites and turn to Youtube. .
Just out of interest - what age group do you fall into?Be interesting to see what comes out of the Russian investigation relating to these platforms as currently they don't have to work under the same restrictive rules for the traditional media channels of newspapers, and broadcast. I can see new rules being implemented, bringing them more in line with traditional media and making them more accountable
CAPP0 said:
So, about this Donald Trump bloke, then....... 
Back OT (ish), has there been any output from him on the temporary suspension of his beloved Twitter account yet? Allegedly a disgruntled employee did it on their last day working for Twitter.
Isn't he on a flying tour insulting every one in Asia? Ah sorry my clock is running a day ahead Back OT (ish), has there been any output from him on the temporary suspension of his beloved Twitter account yet? Allegedly a disgruntled employee did it on their last day working for Twitter.
Byker28i said:
Boydie88 said:
Byker28i said:
Boydie88 said:
And I think you're missing the point that more and more people turn away from News sites and turn to Youtube. .
Just out of interest - what age group do you fall into?Be interesting to see what comes out of the Russian investigation relating to these platforms as currently they don't have to work under the same restrictive rules for the traditional media channels of newspapers, and broadcast. I can see new rules being implemented, bringing them more in line with traditional media and making them more accountable
A couple of questions for BV72;
Are you basing your position of Daily Mail being pro-Nazi solely on their historical articles before WWII or do you have any post WWII evidence of pro-Nazi articles by the Mail?
If it is just on the historical pre-WWII then are you also saying the Daily Mirror is also pro-Nazi for, as the Guardian article confirms, they posted similar articles at a similar time?
If, as you assert, the Daily Mail is Far Right, then do you think the Guardian and perhaps the BBC is Far Left? Can you provide a list of Far Left, through moderate Left and Centre, to moderate Right and Far Right to substantiate your claims?
Are you basing your position of Daily Mail being pro-Nazi solely on their historical articles before WWII or do you have any post WWII evidence of pro-Nazi articles by the Mail?
If it is just on the historical pre-WWII then are you also saying the Daily Mirror is also pro-Nazi for, as the Guardian article confirms, they posted similar articles at a similar time?
If, as you assert, the Daily Mail is Far Right, then do you think the Guardian and perhaps the BBC is Far Left? Can you provide a list of Far Left, through moderate Left and Centre, to moderate Right and Far Right to substantiate your claims?
Seems to me any publication publishing the pictures of three Judges on its front page, Judges who were merely implementing the law of the land as they see it, as is their role in society, and screaming "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE" at them, can quite fairly be labelled a far right publication on that one fact alone. It is the behaviour of Fascists.
Guilty as charged, case closed, send 'im down.
Anyone who buys or clicks this publication is funding Fascists. It's really that simple. Anyone who works for it is complicit too.
What I find hard to stomach is that we are back to trying to explain why Fascism is bad after having spent untold lives and resources defeating it 70 years ago (there's a picture of my Grandad, mounted with his campaign medals to remind me, hanging on a wall at home), and there are people who don't recognise it when they see it, and even worse there are people defending it and cheering it on.
I think I know who the real enemies of the people are.
Guilty as charged, case closed, send 'im down.
Anyone who buys or clicks this publication is funding Fascists. It's really that simple. Anyone who works for it is complicit too.
What I find hard to stomach is that we are back to trying to explain why Fascism is bad after having spent untold lives and resources defeating it 70 years ago (there's a picture of my Grandad, mounted with his campaign medals to remind me, hanging on a wall at home), and there are people who don't recognise it when they see it, and even worse there are people defending it and cheering it on.
I think I know who the real enemies of the people are.
E24man said:
A couple of questions for BV72;
Are you basing your position of Daily Mail being pro-Nazi solely on their historical articles before WWII or do you have any post WWII evidence of pro-Nazi articles by the Mail?
If it is just on the historical pre-WWII then are you also saying the Daily Mirror is also pro-Nazi for, as the Guardian article confirms, they posted similar articles at a similar time?
If, as you assert, the Daily Mail is Far Right, then do you think the Guardian and perhaps the BBC is Far Left? Can you provide a list of Far Left, through moderate Left and Centre, to moderate Right and Far Right to substantiate your claims?
That's rather an onerous request...Are you basing your position of Daily Mail being pro-Nazi solely on their historical articles before WWII or do you have any post WWII evidence of pro-Nazi articles by the Mail?
If it is just on the historical pre-WWII then are you also saying the Daily Mirror is also pro-Nazi for, as the Guardian article confirms, they posted similar articles at a similar time?
If, as you assert, the Daily Mail is Far Right, then do you think the Guardian and perhaps the BBC is Far Left? Can you provide a list of Far Left, through moderate Left and Centre, to moderate Right and Far Right to substantiate your claims?
E24man said:
A couple of questions for BV72;
Are you basing your position of Daily Mail being pro-Nazi solely on their historical articles before WWII or do you have any post WWII evidence of pro-Nazi articles by the Mail?
I'd say pretty much most of their output would fall broadly into that category. It's not nicknamed The Daily Heil for nothing...Are you basing your position of Daily Mail being pro-Nazi solely on their historical articles before WWII or do you have any post WWII evidence of pro-Nazi articles by the Mail?
The "newspaper" is social cancer.
Boydie88 said:
They're far right? As in the furthest right you can go? Deluded.
The Mail is main stream media ffs.
Being mainstream is no guarantee of not holding a left or right leaning view, as the boundary of what is viewed mainstream is not fixed, it moves. That movement reflects public opinion, but that's being continuously influenced by politics, the media and business interests, who in turn benefit from where the "centre" sits. Have a read up on the "Overton Window". I'd argue the Mail is a prime example of it in action, as it seeks to set a narrative that drives public views rightwards, then feeds off that movement to normalise previously non-mainstream views, chiefly for its own benefit. I wouldn't label the Mail "far right", but the risk is that as the window is shifted rightwards, those who were already on the fringes get shunted further rightwards, which emboldens the organisations at that end of the spectrum. You can certainly see that online, where Breitbart is a gateway to a whole constellation of fringe outlets, being they political, racial or conspiratorial. I'd recommend reading up on the Powell Memorandum. If you have the time, the Attack Ads! podcast did a very in depth series of episodes on it. Jane Mayer's "Dark Money" is also worth a read. There's undoubtedly groups trying to control and influence media on both sides of the political divide, but those on the right in particular have created a huge network of front groups and organisations through which they seek influence, especially in the US and increasingly in the UK as well. The Mail is main stream media ffs.
Not-The-Messiah said:
ScudNorth said:
Not-The-Messiah said:
Please refer to my last sentence in my last post, as you seem to be one of them.
Of course, I forgot. Children 5-10 years of age are experts at "nuance, sarcasm or irony". Not at all inappropriate for a 71 year old man to involve them in his petty fight with their parents. Edited by Not-The-Messiah on Friday 3rd November 00:19
It's a great thing a bit of sarcasm if used properly it's allows you to complement and criticise in the same instance. And allows you to be humble but yet still retain control.
I'm sure someone with your abilities and intelligence you will soon be able to master it. See a bit of sarcasm there.
DMN said:
Who is he referring to as a Disney character?p1stonhead said:
Who is he referring to as a Disney character?
Edit: I got lost due to the high amount of people he is in a twitter battle with!Elizabeth Warren
He called her Pocahontas due her self proclaimed native american heritage.
This guy is the president.
Wow
Edited by Christmassss on Friday 3rd November 15:26
Christmassss said:
https://twitter.com/donnabrazile?ref_src=twsrc%5Eg...
He called her Pocahontas due to the colour of her skin.
This guy is the president.
Wow
Technically due to her self-identifying as Native American.He called her Pocahontas due to the colour of her skin.
This guy is the president.
Wow
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff