This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Bias against Trump
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 EverybodyDannsNow  SE19 29 Nov 17 4.16pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Well, obviously we don't agree I regard points in your last paragraph as being evidenced and seen in this piece. As for sources....well, there is a point if we had to regard Twitter as a court of law but that's not how I see Twitter nor Trump. Trump is Trump, he isn't required to fit anyone's conceptions of how a president should act. He gets elected or he doesn't. Tell me, do you regard the unverified videos of the last Syrian chemical attacks as having no worth? As something that should be kept from the public? Are those videos of IS throwing supposed homosexuals off of roofs as no worth because they are unverified.....should they be kept from the public? Surely you understand that the nature of many of these videos means they are unverified. You either believe them or don't.....usually using context and number of them.....but certainty is for the deluded.
I'd start off by saying that by no means am I arguing that these videos should be 'kept from the public' - just because something isn't being retweed by the POTUS, it doesn't mean it's being hidden from the public; there is a bit of a range between those two extremes. The video of the Syrian attacks is an interesting comparison and one I had not considered - having said that, I think the key difference is you know exactly what you are looking at and where/when it took place (context) - as I said above, random videos of violence where one of those involved happens to have brown skin are not really showing anything as you have no idea if religion is even involved in the incident. Sure, there are some where it's very obvious (like the ISIS on the roof one you mention), but there are many on that particular Twitter page which are not at all, and many where the caption Britain First have attached to it has been proven to be entirely incorrect. Of course the nature of these videos is unverified, but then my gripe is not at all with the existence (or indeed circulation) of the videos themselves. My gripe is with someone in Donald's Trump's position of influence tweeting inflammatory content with no relevant information or research shared, and without any sort of verification - it's astonishingly naive. He's a President who's spent large parts of his term ousting 'fake news', and yet here he is broadcasting information which fits that description perfectly - that deserves criticism.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| DanH SW2 29 Nov 17 4.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
It doesn't need biased or unbiased press reporting to realise the bloke is a Grade A f*cking moron. Just listening to him speak is enough for any rational person to come to that conclusion.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
croydon proud  Any european country i fancy! 29 Nov 17 4.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DanH
It doesn't need biased or unbiased press reporting to realise the bloke is a Grade A f*cking moron. Just listening to him speak is enough for any rational person to come to that conclusion. Hear hear ! or as donald would say,,,,Hear hear , hear hear!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 29 Nov 17 4.31pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
I'd start off by saying that by no means am I arguing that these videos should be 'kept from the public' - just because something isn't being retweed by the POTUS, it doesn't mean it's being hidden from the public; there is a bit of a range between those two extremes. The video of the Syrian attacks is an interesting comparison and one I had not considered - having said that, I think the key difference is you know exactly what you are looking at and where/when it took place (context) - as I said above, random videos of violence where one of those involved happens to have brown skin are not really showing anything as you have no idea if religion is even involved in the incident. Sure, there are some where it's very obvious (like the ISIS on the roof one you mention), but there are many on that particular Twitter page which are not at all, and many where the caption Britain First have attached to it has been proven to be entirely incorrect. Of course the nature of these videos is unverified, but then my gripe is not at all with the existence (or indeed circulation) of the videos themselves. My gripe is with someone in Donald's Trump's position of influence tweeting inflammatory content with no relevant information or research shared, and without any sort of verification - it's astonishingly naive. He's a President who's spent large parts of his term ousting 'fake news', and yet here he is broadcasting information which fits that description perfectly - that deserves criticism. It's a totally valid criticism to point out that Trump is a hypocrite......he lies every day. He's also lied about every day but nevertheless...nothing worse than he would do. America choose between him and Clinton and it was basically tied....he gets in on the states' votes system they have. Should he retweet this stuff.....well, I'm fine with it but I recognise your point about the POTUS position.....am I wrong to find the reactions against him a bit amusing...what can I say...guilty as charged. Still, one of the few areas I agree with him is in recognising the threat from radical Islam and being willing to keep it relevant and find ways to improve immigration. You say we know about the Syrian chemical attacks and roof murders are probably true.....well....yeah we do..It's hard to fake that stuff..and that's how I view these videos because nothing in them hasn't been seen before. Could they be faked....yeah.....probably not though....but perhaps that will come out. Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Nov 2017 4.33pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 29 Nov 17 7.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I still can't get my head around that the leader of the free world retweeted a convicted fascists video of unverified Islamic attacks , thus helping promote an islamaphobic group, Britain First to his 4 million followers.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
tome  Inner Tantalus Time. 29 Nov 17 8.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
I agree. The BBC is no longer representative of the majority. ITV and Channel 4 are even worse. I'm genuinely struggling with both your views on this. The BBC is one of the greatest institutions in the world, let alone this country. It's not perfect, but what is your alternative?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Ray in Houston  Houston 29 Nov 17 8.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
They are criticising Trump because they are progressive and they look for any chance to criticise him. The BBC website takes numerous opportunities to push a progressive agenda...on general taxpayer money. Calling these videos 'unverified' is amusing. It's just another apologist 'get out of jail' card. I've watched plenty of videos like those. It's not until you hear the sound of a homosexual or opponent hitting the pavement from a roof that words like 'unverified' become amusing....yeah mate, give you name and address when you post that stuff...thanks. No one is saying these videos are from Britain, but I find it hard to justify censoring the truth about the excesses of religion from the general public.
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Ray in Houston Houston 29 Nov 17 8.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DanH
It doesn't need biased or unbiased press reporting to realise the bloke is a Grade A f*cking moron. Just listening to him speak is enough for any rational person to come to that conclusion.
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 29 Nov 17 8.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
I still can't get my head around that the leader of the free world retweeted a convicted fascists video of unverified Islamic attacks , thus helping promote an islamaphobic group, Britain First to his 4 million followers.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 29 Nov 17 8.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Husband of Jo Cox, whose killer shouted 'Britain First' whilst murdering her... [Tweet Link]
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 29 Nov 17 8.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by tome
I'm genuinely struggling with both your views on this. The BBC is one of the greatest institutions in the world, let alone this country. It's not perfect, but what is your alternative? How about a non lefty news broadcaster on free to air. None exists.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 29 Nov 17 8.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
How about a non lefty news broadcaster on free to air. None exists. LBC has Farage on it, and your mate Shawaz
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.