Off Topic Politics Thread

[brb]

This has been a rallying cry for the "insurgent" politicians. Tar every single other news source with the brush of being full of lies.

"Fake News" had a specific meaning; there are websites out there that realised that made up (literally made up) news received more clicks than real, fact-checked news. Fake meant fake, made up, lying, untrue.

Here's one example: US police arrested a man wielding an assault rifle who entered a pizza restaurant that was the target of fake news reports it was operating a child abuse ring led by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her top campaign aide. That piece of news was utterly fabricated. I chose this story as the first one I could find. There were also fake news stories about Trump, but it's meant to illustrate the point.

Now, however, "Fake News" is being bandied about by the US President, no less, to refer to anything he doesn't want to hear. Fewer people at his inauguration? Fake news. Lowest approval ratings for a new president? Fake news. Weird one now, polls were wrong before the election. Fake News.


So, discredit all news sources but quietly guide people to websites that reflects your agenda, possibly run by your advisers. Let people know that those outlets don't peddle liberal lies. Then you've got them. You're telling the truth. This is today's equivalent of 1930s propaganda. And people are falling for it.

Vin

I always discredit all British news stories for sure, this makes a pretty amusing take on how it worked for Brexit....https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/conspiracy-theories-and-campaign-leave-eu

I've not looked for a Trump similar article, think I just got bored with it all.

 

[ImpSaint]

I always discredit all British news stories for sure, this makes a pretty amusing take on how it worked for Brexit....https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/conspiracy-theories-and-campaign-leave-eu

I've not looked for a Trump similar article, think I just got bored with it all.

While it is quite obvious that there were lies and misrepresentation from the leave side and fake news there it ignores the whole "world war 3" and "immediate economic doom" from the remain side.

Cameron and Osborne told us that the effect would be immediately after the referendum yet whenever remainers are questioned these days they answer "but we haven't left yet" which is not what the remain side said. They said immediately after the result, not "once we have left the EU."

There is not really that much fake news around. there is however vast swathes of misrepresentation and exaggeration on all sides of the political argument. The problem being that in days of old it would just be intermittent appearances by politicians where they spun their policies or persuasions whereas now it is the 24/7 news age aided by any man and his dog being able to stick up a website and say whatever they want.

The problem has always been there, just these days it is much more accessible and constantly in front of your eyes or in your ears. There is no escape from it.

The suggestions of tackling "fake news" is just as worrying as it being there in the first place. Who decides what is fake news? It is a very dangerous route to take when someone(s) is given the legal ability to censor what people are able to see. Who is to say that it won;t reach much further than tackling the extremes and end up as an "acceptable" version of dictatorial countries where their state controlled media and press all carry the same line?

 

[Archers Road]

While it is quite obvious that there were lies and misrepresentation from the leave side and fake news there it ignores the whole "world war 3" and "immediate economic doom" from the remain side.

Cameron and Osborne told us that the effect would be immediately after the referendum yet whenever remainers are questioned these days they answer "but we haven't left yet" which is not what the remain side said. They said immediately after the result, not "once we have left the EU."

There is not really that much fake news around. there is however vast swathes of misrepresentation and exaggeration on all sides of the political argument. The problem being that in days of old it would just be intermittent appearances by politicians where they spun their policies or persuasions whereas now it is the 24/7 news age aided by any man and his dog being able to stick up a website ans say whatever they want.

The problem has always been there, just these days it is much more accessible and constantly in front of your eyes or in your ears. There is no escape from it and it.

The suggestions of tackling "fake news" is just as worrying as it being there in the first place. Who decides what is fake news? It is a very dangerous route to take when someone(s) is given the legal ability to censor what people are able to see. Who is to say that it won;t reach much further than tackling the extremes and end up as an "acceptable" version of dictatorial countries where their state controlled media and press all carry the same line?

They based those forecasts on the assumption that Article 50 would be invoked immediately after the vote. There is a chance they mave have been unnecessarily pessimistic in their predictions, but even so, the long term economic impact of Brexit is unlikely to be benign - for anyone.

As for "who decides what is fake news" the answer is anybody capable of rational thought and reasoned judgement; which is by no means everyone, and may explain why Trump "loves the poorly educated" (his words).

 

[The Ides of March]

Motion of no confidence table against speaker John Bercow. Not surprising:

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...confidence-in-john-bercow-over-trump-comments

Who are the disgusting MPs who have brought up this motion? Mother Theresa should tell those involved in the motion to "go and do one." I cannot fathom anything that he did wrong or was out of place.

 

[ImpSaint]

Who are the disgusting MPs who have brought up this motion? Mother Theresa should tell those involved in the motion to "go and do one." I cannot fathom anything that he did wrong or was out of place.

He has already admitted he was wrong.

John Bercow the person can say what he wants however the speaker of the house cannot. He did not advise or discuss the matter with the speaker of the Lords ignoring protocols, due process and the necessities of his position, then weighed in on a political argument in his position of speaker and not as a citizen.

Might seem trivial to you but that is a big big problem.

 

[The Ides of March]

He has already admitted he was wrong.

John Bercow the person can say what he wants however the speaker of the house cannot. He did not advise or discuss the matter with the speaker of the Lords ignoring protocols, due process and the necessities of his position, then weighed in on a political argument in his position of speaker and not as a citizen.

Might seem trivial to you but that is a big big problem.

There is no problem. His enemies are just trying to remove him. He did after all speak the truth about the imcumbent of the White House. Why should the Mother of Parliament's have to be subjected to a bigot and racist? That is the issue to answer, not the protocol

 

[Archers Road]

There is no problem. His enemies are just trying to remove him. He did after all speak the truth about the imcumbent of the White House. Why should the Mother of Parliament's have to be subjected to a bigot and racist? That is the issue to answer, not the protocol

Not sure Ides. Much as I dislike Trump and cringe at the thought of him addressing the mother of parliaments, the Speaker of the house has a duty of impartiality, & protocols are important (not that Trump would ever respect one). Unless John Bercow was speaking in a personal rather than professional capacity, he should really remain neutral if the subject of a State Visit is debated.

 

[Beddy]

The speakers roll in parliament is simply to see fair play between the various factions. He is not there to offer an opinion as a speaker. Unfortunately his neutrality has been called into question. He will be lucky to survive a vote no confidence. Even if he does I think his days will be numbered in that roll.

 

[ImpSaint]

They based those forecasts on the assumption that Article 50 would be invoked immediately after the vote. There is a chance they mave have been unnecessarily pessimistic in their predictions, but even so, the long term economic impact of Brexit is unlikely to be benign - for anyone.

As for "who decides what is fake news" the answer is anybody capable of rational thought and reasoned judgement; which is by no means everyone, and may explain why Trump "loves the poorly educated" (his words).

So they based their fear mongering on them still being in power? And then jumped ship themselves? This wasn't just what Cameron and Osborne said. All sources said it would be immediate yet all sources (other than Tories being diplomatic) admitted that Cameron's position would be untenable. Do you really think all the remainers in the house from other parties were unaware that the civil service had been told NOT to draw up contingency plans for leaving the EU? And if Cameron/May had decided to trigger article 50 immediately do you not think the Pimlico plumber (who campaigned for leave) and his mate Gina Miller might have started "thinking about normal people" (not their profits of course) court case earlier to stop it being triggered?

So all those assumptions were made BY people that were fully behind remain. That were fully aware that they would delay article 50 being triggered anyway and fully aware that they were lying. The BofE has had to upgrade its forecasts twice already yet still predicts gloom in the next year. The IMF has had to upgrade its forecasts yet predicts gloom in the next year. At the end of the year what will we hear? more gloom despite more upgraded forecasts.

I'm not arguing that the economic impact will not be benign however the BBC are not reporting on the reports coming out of Europe yesterday that the UK will be the fastest growing economy in Europe and in a much better place than many others in the next 30 years? Deadly silence on that one because "it doesn't fit the narrative":

http://pwc.blogs.com/press_room/201...10-global-economy-in-2050-despite-brexit.html

There will undoubtedly be a hit to our economy around the point where we are due to exit and for some period after it. Will the Euro still be alive in 2 years? and if not will the EU still be alive anyway? Will these factors be taken into account or will it all be down to Brexit?

however because for a short term period (and yes 2,3,4 years is a short term period in terms of our future) there will be a hit to our economy does not mean we should just continue the plod into Guy Verhofstadt, Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk's dream of a completely federal Europe. They call it "complete European Integration" but that is what they want and Guy Verhofstadt has very clearly stated many times "yes we are working towards an EU army." Juncker is always too drunk to answer and Tusk recoils from the subject rather than admit it or deny it.

The fact that Martin Shultz has jumped ship tells you everything you need to know because he had big aspirations to get to the top. He knows that it is touch and go whether the EU and Euro will last or not and is quite open about how incredibly fragile the "European project" is at the moment.

This whole argument by the remain side calling the leave side liars about the EU army seem not to have noticed that pre Brexit right through to the present day the EU has continued its desire for an EU army and many of their high rankers have never hidden that desire or intention.

Watch a program that was on this week on the BBC called "This World - after Brexit" For a BBC program it was actually quite informative without the bias. Also detailed just why the EU project is going to struggle to survive.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08dx4lz/this-world-after-brexit-the-battle-for-europe

 

[ImpSaint]

The speakers roll in parliament is simply to see fair play between the various factions. He is not there to offer an opinion as a speaker. Unfortunately his neutrality has been called into question. He will be lucky to survive a vote no confidence. Even if he does I think his days will be numbered in that roll.

He will easily survive the vote IMO. However if enough votes are against him 200? it will put him in a very frail position and he might resign anyway. If not he will go next year when he completes his 9 years (unless he breaks his promise and stays on)

 

[ImpSaint]

Is Guido Fawkes (order-order.com) considered fake news?

 

[ImpSaint]

So to continue on from the "Daily Fail" thread where we are told we were off topic......despite the topic being a politically motivated action......

.........what do people think of...........

.........(I have my hard hat and ear defenders on)......

James Slack has been appointed the PM's Official Spokesperson......

......so he leaves.................

..........The Daily Mail, who will now be looking for a new political editor..........

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/02/10...resa-may-going-give-us-daily-mail-government/

Fake news? or real? I'll leave you to research that one. I suppose the nice papers (Indie/Guardian) will explode with their disgust........if it is real news.....is it?


------(I ran to the exit before the sparks flew)---------

 

[----HistoryRepeating----]

Feels dirty talking politics on this thread.

 

[ChilcoSaint]

So to continue on from the "Daily Fail" thread where we are told we were off topic......despite the topic being a politically motivated action......

.........what do people think of...........

.........(I have my hard hat and ear defenders on)......

James Slack has been appointed the PM's Official Spokesperson......

......so he leaves.................

..........The Daily Mail, who will now be looking for a new political editor..........

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/02/10...resa-may-going-give-us-daily-mail-government/

Fake news? or real? I'll leave you to research that one. I suppose the nice papers (Indie/Guardian) will explode with their disgust........if it is real news.....is it?


------(I ran to the exit before the sparks flew)---------

You decided it was a politically motivated action and the thread turned into a political debate. This is a football forum, where talk of politics is not allowed, except on this thread. Look at the first post on this thread if you need reminding. It's really not that difficult to work out.

 

[ImpSaint]

You decided it was a politically motivated action and the thread turned into a political debate. This is a football forum, where talk of politics is not allowed, except on this thread. Look at the first post on this thread if you need reminding. It's really not that difficult to work out.

The whole "fake news" reaction is due to politics. Wikipedia's decision is based on this. I did not decide on it at all. The Wikipedia decision is politically motivated and thus it was a political topic and you were quite right to close it and suggest we stick to the politics thread for political subjects.

 

[ChilcoSaint]

The whole "fake news" reaction is due to politics. Wikipedia's decision is based on this. I did not decide on it at all. The Wikipedia decision is politically motivated and thus it was a political topic and you were quite right to close it and suggest we stick to the politics thread for political subjects.

Fair enough.

 

[The Ides of March]

The speakers roll in parliament is simply to see fair play between the various factions. He is not there to offer an opinion as a speaker. Unfortunately his neutrality has been called into question. He will be lucky to survive a vote no confidence. Even if he does I think his days will be numbered in that roll.

He was impartial and speaking on behalf of all MPs and everybody in the country. Is there anyone out there that does not agree with Bercow's statements to the house? If we use protocol he may be wrong, morally he is right and that is what counts. Lets support an excellent Speaker ( and this is coming from a non Tory in suport of a Tory) For me that is difficult but when you have Ken Clarke, Burcow and Anna Soubry,there is some sanity there.

 

[ImpSaint]

He was impartial and speaking on behalf of all MPs and everybody in the country. Is there anyone out there that dows not agree with Bercows staemetns to the house? If we use protocol he may be wrong, morally he is right and that is what counts. Lets support an excellent Speaker ( and this is coming from a non Tory in suport of a Tory) For me that is difficult but when you have Ken Clarke, Burcow and Anna Soubry,there is some sanity there.

I was going to reply in more detail but thought better of it. Short version. Labour voted Bercow in as speaker! Clarke promoted with a vengeance something he hadn't even read and Soubry is the worst actor in the house suggesting her Nottingham constituents had "probably never seen an immigrant in their lives."

Reminds me of this "light hearted" quip:
https://life.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/a-handy-guide-to-left-wing-people-for-the-under-10s/

 

[Beef]

Mississippi lawmakers are advancing a proposal to add firing squad, electrocution and gas chamber as execution methods in case a court blocks the use of lethal injection drugs.

House Bill 638 is a response to lawsuits filed by "liberal, left-wing radicals," said House Judiciary B Committee Chairman Andy Gipson, a Republican.

The bill passed the House amid opposition Wednesday, and it moves to the Senate for more debate.

Lethal injection is Mississippi's only execution method. The state faces lawsuits claiming the drugs it plans to use would violate constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment.

Mississippi hasn't been able to acquire the execution drugs it once used, and it last carried out an execution in 2012. The state has 47 people on death row , and some have been there for decades.

The 33 states with the death penalty all have lethal injection as the primary method of execution, according to the Death Penalty Information Center . The center says only Oklahoma and Utah have firing squad as an option; eight states have electrocution as an option; five have gas chamber as an option; and three have hanging as an option. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...utions-n718906

 

[fatletiss]

Mississippi lawmakers are advancing a proposal to add firing squad, electrocution and gas chamber as execution methods in case a court blocks the use of lethal injection drugs.

House Bill 638 is a response to lawsuits filed by "liberal, left-wing radicals," said House Judiciary B Committee Chairman Andy Gipson, a Republican.

The bill passed the House amid opposition Wednesday, and it moves to the Senate for more debate.

Lethal injection is Mississippi's only execution method. The state faces lawsuits claiming the drugs it plans to use would violate constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment.

Mississippi hasn't been able to acquire the execution drugs it once used, and it last carried out an execution in 2012. The state has 47 people on death row , and some have been there for decades.

The 33 states with the death penalty all have lethal injection as the primary method of execution, according to the Death Penalty Information Center . The center says only Oklahoma and Utah have firing squad as an option; eight states have electrocution as an option; five have gas chamber as an option; and three have hanging as an option. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...utions-n718906

That place will be burning again soon.