POTUS 2017

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by robertk » Sun Aug 20, 2017 10:57 am

MrMan wrote:


To say that the BBC has a socialist message is ridiculous. Either you have no idea what socialist is or you do not watch/read the BBC
.


https://www.standard.co.uk/news/what-is ... 45499.html
For three decades I was that rare breed - a Conservative at the BBC. In my time working on programmes such as Today and Breakfast News I couldn't have formed a cricket team from Tory sympathisers.
As one producer put it, you feel almost part of an ethnic minority.
We all know the cliched critique of the BBC: a nest of Lefties promoting a progressive agenda and political correctness.
Depressingly, that cliche is uncomfortably close to the truth: the BBC is biased,and it is a bias that seriously distorts public debate.
In the past 30 years, 'Auntie' has transformed from the staid upholder of the status quo to a champion of progressive causes.
In the process, the ideal at the heart of the corporation - that it should be fair-minded and non-partisan - has all but disappeared
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvan ... ty.html?fb
In its great scheme of things, the BBC knows how to report clearly defined victims – pensioners cheated by PPI, formerly abused children, “whistleblowers”. What it cannot understand is the position of the great majority of the people watching it – that they pay tax, and they keep paying more of it. Seldom do they see the story in a tax rise, in energy bills or planning delays, in their own stupefying executive pay-offs. Seldom do they expose the rise in the national debt or investigate why it is that, despite “cuts” every day, government spending still grows bigger all the time. The one entity, in short, in which the BBC feels permanently uninterested is the individual citizen
I absorbed and expressed all the accepted BBC attitudes: hostility to, or at least suspicion of, America, monarchy, government, capitalism, empire, banking and the defence establishment, and in favour of the Health Service, state welfare, the social sciences, the environment and state education.Sir Antony Jay, former BBC producer
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ssons.html
For 20 years I was a front man at the BBC, anchoring news and current ­affairs programmes, so I reckon nobody is better placed than me to ­answer the question that nags at many of its viewers — is the BBC biased?
In my view, ‘bias’ is too blunt a word to describe the subtleties of the ­pervading culture. The better word is a ‘mindset’. At the core of the BBC, in its very DNA, is a way of thinking that is firmly of the Left.
By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent. ­Producers refer to them routinely for the line to take on ­running stories, and for inspiration on which items to cover. In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 5633
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by Aloka » Sun Aug 20, 2017 11:13 am

'

Interestingly, the quotes from the previous post are from:

1. The Evening Standard, with an editor (George Osborne)who was the former Conservative (Tory) Chancellor.

2. The Telegraph - which is a Tory- backed paper .

3. The Daily Mail - which is a Tory- backed paper.

:thinking:

Do you live in the UK yourself, Robert?.....or somewhere else?

.

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3051
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by Mr Man » Sun Aug 20, 2017 4:26 pm

Who better to choose as a new director of communications for the Conservative party than the BBC’s head of operations at Westminster?
“I am pleased to announce I will be leaving the BBC to join the prime minister, Theresa May, as her new director of communications.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 27351.html


And something funny

https://youtu.be/WPXOgHOdgEs

But I guess we should get :focus:

Buddha Vacana
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:16 am

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by Buddha Vacana » Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:14 am


User avatar
SDC
Posts: 3770
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by SDC » Tue Aug 22, 2017 6:16 pm

Buddha Vacana wrote: Well, there you go, doing the comparison yourself and finding a number of similarities and seemingly agreeing with those who say that if he had his ways, Trump would become a dictator.

...
Elected presidents becoming dictators? Ahem... (since you've brought that up)... Hitler? Erdogan? Such things happen.
You underestimate the strength of the US Constitution. It has regulated this guy already but I guess you don't see that. The liberals here don't see it either, they think they're doing it. What happens in 3 and half years when he doesn't amount to anything? You gonna concede that you overdid it just like you're insisting his supporters should concede that he is everything the liberals guessed he would be?

Buddha Vacana
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:16 am

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by Buddha Vacana » Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:28 pm

SDC wrote: You underestimate the strength of the US Constitution. It has regulated this guy already but I guess you don't see that. The liberals here don't see it either, they think they're doing it.
I am sorry to tell you that but the more I discuss with you, the more I feel that you are projecting stereotypes on me and it feels like you're telling me what you'd like to tell some other people, except that you are wrong about equating my opinions with theirs in the first place. I get it. My mother does that often enough.

So I have never said that it was likely that Trump would become a dictator, just that he seems to have the temper for it (haven't you said something along these lines yourself?) and that it seems he would become one if he could. And where I disagree is that I don't think this is a small matter that you can just brush off like that. That man is dangerous. You may not feel yourself too much threatened by his rhetorics but there are many who do and for whom the situation doesn't look as benign as you seem to present it

SDC wrote: What happens in 3 and half years when he doesn't amount to anything? You gonna concede that you overdid it just like you're insisting his supporters should concede that he is everything the liberals guessed he would be?
The fact that nothing happened is no proof that there wasn't any danger. If you think that saying Trump is a dangerous man is "overdoing it" then let's just agree to disagree. I think there are plenty of people in your country who feel pertinently threatened by all he agitates. Just the discourse he made advocating for behaviors that can amount to police brutality is enough said to justify my point imo.

Since you seem eager to frame me into a predefined ideological camp, I'll drop a few vids of a guy I pretty much agree with (at least as far as the matters presented in those two videos go, and as far as I can recall; I don't know much about what else he preaches)

Here about the aforementioned police brutality lines:


Here a pretty convincing case that the Russian hack story is little more than a conspiracy theory pushed by corrupt establishment democrats:

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 3770
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by SDC » Wed Aug 23, 2017 5:36 pm

Buddha Vacana wrote:
SDC wrote: You underestimate the strength of the US Constitution. It has regulated this guy already but I guess you don't see that. The liberals here don't see it either, they think they're doing it.
I am sorry to tell you that but the more I discuss with you, the more I feel that you are projecting stereotypes on me and it feels like you're telling me what you'd like to tell some other people, except that you are wrong about equating my opinions with theirs in the first place. I get it. My mother does that often enough.
We have been equally unfair to each other throughout this whole thing. This is what happens when people don't know each other.

I have had a bleak view of the world since a very young age. It is no trouble for me to live like that, and I know I can be super insensitive about it, but I can tell the difference between a legitimate threat and outright paranoia. I get it that people are scared of Trump and his rhetoric, but you have to look at the facts of where his authority has its limits and base the better part of your resistance on what is most likely to happen and not solely on the worst case scenario. I rarely see any such balanced perspectives. Am I being too blasé? Perhaps. But if liberals (not you necessarily) overplay their hand they may end up combating a mythical version of Trump instead of the contained disaster that he has so far been.

chownah
Posts: 6601
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by chownah » Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:55 am

SDC wrote: But if liberals (not you necessarily) overplay their hand they may end up combating a mythical version of Trump instead of the contained disaster that he has so far been.
Why pick on liberals? We already have a mythical version of trump being foisted on us everyday.....brought to us by the trump media propoganda press.....three dimentional chess anyone? It is the intellectually lazy segment of the population who provided the swing votes that got him elected and they did this because they bought into the myth....and they are still hooked.
chownah

binocular
Posts: 4073
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by binocular » Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:34 am

chownah wrote:It is the intellectually lazy segment of the population who provided the swing votes that got him elected and they did this because they bought into the myth....and they are still hooked.
It's not clear how this is the case.

It's a dog-eat-dog life and a dog-eat-dog world, and nobody has so far been able to even suggest a viable alternative.

User avatar
cjmacie
Posts: 647
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:49 am

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by cjmacie » Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:10 am

A report some weeks ago (it was in probably either Deutsche Welle or BBC) listed foreign countries' public opinion of the USA (or Trump specifically, don't recall exactly) as drastically reduced in all countries, EXCEPT Russia and Israel, where it's unusually high.

chownah
Posts: 6601
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by chownah » Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:28 am

binocular wrote:
chownah wrote:It is the intellectually lazy segment of the population who provided the swing votes that got him elected and they did this because they bought into the myth....and they are still hooked.
It's not clear how this is the case.

It's a dog-eat-dog life and a dog-eat-dog world, and nobody has so far been able to even suggest a viable alternative.
Yeah, "swing votes" is not quite the right term.
chownah

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 3770
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by SDC » Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:02 am

chownah wrote:
SDC wrote: But if liberals (not you necessarily) overplay their hand they may end up combating a mythical version of Trump instead of the contained disaster that he has so far been.
Why pick on liberals? We already have a mythical version of trump being foisted on us everyday.....brought to us by the trump media propoganda press.....three dimentional chess anyone? It is the intellectually lazy segment of the population who provided the swing votes that got him elected and they did this because they bought into the myth....and they are still hooked.
chownah
They're both guilty of dishonest maintenance, but the influence of the pro-Trump media pales in comparison to trendy, righteousness of its liberal counterpart.

chownah
Posts: 6601
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by chownah » Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:18 pm

SDC wrote:
chownah wrote:
SDC wrote: But if liberals (not you necessarily) overplay their hand they may end up combating a mythical version of Trump instead of the contained disaster that he has so far been.
Why pick on liberals? We already have a mythical version of trump being foisted on us everyday.....brought to us by the trump media propoganda press.....three dimentional chess anyone? It is the intellectually lazy segment of the population who provided the swing votes that got him elected and they did this because they bought into the myth....and they are still hooked.
chownah
They're both guilty of dishonest maintenance, but the influence of the pro-Trump media pales in comparison to trendy, righteousness of its liberal counterpart.
You might be right although let's face it, the pro trump media got him elected inspite of the effort by its liberal counterpart.....so which really has more influence?....or should I say which has more influence for bringing about actual results? (Maybe I misunderstand you. Your statement seems to be comparing "influence" with "righteousness" which seems like an apples to oranges comparison.)

Also, which is to be preferred.....dishonesty supporting trump or dishnesty opposing trump?
chownah

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 3770
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by SDC » Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:22 pm

chownah wrote:
SDC wrote: They're both guilty of dishonest maintenance, but the influence of the pro-Trump media pales in comparison to trendy, righteousness of its liberal counterpart.
You might be right although let's face it, the pro trump media got him elected inspite of the effort by its liberal counterpart.....so which really has more influence?....or should I say which has more influence for bringing about actual results? (Maybe I misunderstand you. Your statement seems to be comparing "influence" with "righteousness" which seems like an apples to oranges comparison.)

Also, which is to be preferred.....dishonesty supporting trump or dishnesty opposing trump?
chownah
From what I gathered it was more of the grass-roots anti-Hillary propaganda on social media that did it for Trump. It was a serious effort. Also, almost all mainstream media refused to report on the size of his rallies all the way up to the end. Perhaps if they didn't cower away from showing the force he had built up, the American people would have had more of an idea what they were actually dealing with. They opted to give a diminished version and paid dearly; they should've overplayed that hand but probably thought they were containing Trump's momentum by not acknowledging it. Fair enough. We have to face it that everyone was so sure Hillary had it, and both she and the media that supported her dropped the ball in resisting him where and when it counted. They think they can make up for it now but it is a lot of wasted breath, a day late and dollar short.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1216
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by Bundokji » Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:30 pm

chownah wrote:Also, which is to be preferred.....dishonesty supporting trump or dishnesty opposing trump?
I personally prefer dishonesty supporting trump as its easily detected and does not hide behind shiny (yet empty) moral slogans.
“It happened that a fire broke out backstage in a theater. The clown came out to inform the public. They thought it was a jest and applauded. He repeated his warning. They shouted even louder. So I think the world will come to an end amid the general applause from all the wits who believe that it is a joke.”
Søren Kierkegaard

chownah
Posts: 6601
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by chownah » Fri Aug 25, 2017 4:20 am

Bundokji wrote:
chownah wrote:Also, which is to be preferred.....dishonesty supporting trump or dishnesty opposing trump?
I personally prefer dishonesty supporting trump as its easily detected and does not hide behind shiny (yet empty) moral slogans.
Have you forgotten that it was to a great extent that dishonesty supporting trump is what got him elected? Are you saying that you prefer trump be elected? (of course considering the alternative does take alot of the sting out of my arguement!)
chownah

chownah
Posts: 6601
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by chownah » Fri Aug 25, 2017 5:03 am

SDC wrote:
From what I gathered it was more of the grass-roots anti-Hillary propaganda on social media that did it for Trump. It was a serious effort.
Yeah, grass roots! Check out Cambridge Analytica. Bannon was one of the big wigs there before he moved to the trump team. It is a "big data" company. From their website....what you see first when it comes up:
Data drives all we do.

Cambridge Analytica uses data to change audience behavior. Visit our Commercial or Political divisions to see how we can help you.
The boys (and girls I guess) at cambridge analytica can whip up a grass roots campaign if you've got the money. But....you say....it seemed like a genuine grass roots campaign. Well of course....those guys (and gals I guess) are professionals.

chownah

chownah
Posts: 6601
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by chownah » Fri Aug 25, 2017 5:11 am

chownah wrote:ONe way to downsize the gov't is through making a mess of everything so that nothing gets done.
chownah
Here is an expert (that's how they describe him) who agrees:
A Government Shutdown Would Make America Great Again, Top Expert Explains
https://www.thestreet.com/story/1428388 ... yptr=yahoo
chownah

Buddha Vacana
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:16 am

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by Buddha Vacana » Fri Aug 25, 2017 6:09 am

chownah wrote:
SDC wrote:
From what I gathered it was more of the grass-roots anti-Hillary propaganda on social media that did it for Trump. It was a serious effort.
Yeah, grass roots! Check out Cambridge Analytica. Bannon was one of the big wigs there before he moved to the trump team. It is a "big data" company. From their website....what you see first when it comes up:
Data drives all we do.

Cambridge Analytica uses data to change audience behavior. Visit our Commercial or Political divisions to see how we can help you.
The boys (and girls I guess) at cambridge analytica can whip up a grass roots campaign if you've got the money. But....you say....it seemed like a genuine grass roots campaign. Well of course....those guys (and gals I guess) are professionals.

chownah
:goodpost:

:tongue:

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1216
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by Bundokji » Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:50 am

chownah wrote:Have you forgotten that it was to a great extent that dishonesty supporting trump is what got him elected? Are you saying that you prefer trump be elected? (of course considering the alternative does take alot of the sting out of my arguement!)
chownah
I think Trump got elected as a reaction against the establishment, not because of dishonest media support. Media played a role, but again as a reaction. The obsession of left wing media attacking him (which is still as intense) most of the time not over substance or policy, but over his personality, stupidity and lies.

Here i want to differentiate between two types of lies/dishonesty:

1- active lies: trump himself is a very active liar and i guess a lot of the media which supports him. This type of lying is easily detected, a childish type of lying, and does not hide behind fake virtues. Most active liars are less dishonest internally i would say. He/she is more likely to be naive realist, and his/her knowledge of the world is more likely to be based on common sense and pragmatism.

2- lies by omission. This is the subtle one, not easy to detect, and includes half truths, ideals, appeal to authority (such as science), appeal to virtue (glittering generality) , appeal to emotions ...etc. And as this kind of lying requires omission of some sort, it takes the form of political correctness, silencing the other, virtue signaling, turning a blind eye on what is right on the other side and focuses only on the negative which turns to be a continuous and viscous attack.

I personally don't prefer Trump to be elected, but i think he is useful in many ways. You will understand how useful he is if you use a pragmatic approach to ethics and morality. In the long term, he is a step forward even though creating a more moral American society is his last concern. When he blamed people on many sides during the clashes in Charlottesville, he was effectively protecting a degree of moral diversity in America. The left wing media only focused on the false moral equivalence, but could not see what is right in what he did, because their lies is always based on "omissions".

All in my opinion.
“It happened that a fire broke out backstage in a theater. The clown came out to inform the public. They thought it was a jest and applauded. He repeated his warning. They shouted even louder. So I think the world will come to an end amid the general applause from all the wits who believe that it is a joke.”
Søren Kierkegaard

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mikenz66 and 16 guests