American Election Discussion

1252628303133

Comments

  • There is a genuine conflict of information nowadays though. The current generation and next generation have been bought up to challenge anything and everything, which for a lot of people has turned into doubt over everything and anything.

    An interesting one is Russia, if you actually look into it there is a lot of propaganda going both ways its almost impossible to tell what is fact and fiction because both sides just pile on stories that doubt one another.
  • MrsGrey

    He hates the media so much and doesn't trust them to report the truth, but sees something on TV and takes it at face value?

    Either he is a massive liar, or a massive idiot. Maybe both, actually.
  • I think he is a selective media hater.

    Fox News, being quite right wing, probably gets his ;ok more than other outlets.
  • incredibly dangerous though, if he is going to base policy on the back of news reports.
  • There is a genuine conflict of information nowadays though. The current generation and next generation have been bought up to challenge anything and everything, which for a lot of people has turned into doubt over everything and anything.

    An interesting one is Russia, if you actually look into it there is a lot of propaganda going both ways its almost impossible to tell what is fact and fiction because both sides just pile on stories that doubt one another.

    There is a difference between scepticism and cynicism

    Talking of Russia try Sunday's "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver". Really, really funny (if a little bit sweary.....

  • edited February 2017
    claretandbluesky

    Nothing wrong with democracy. It`s the current system of democracy, its representatives, and more importantly who they represent, I.E. the billionaires and the movers and shakers of Capitalism, that is the problem. The tendency is to want less democracy. To be ruled over by "those that really know", the experts, the professionals, people that have made something of themselves, who understand how big business and international relations work, you know, people like Trump and Blair. Our system of democracy is a sham, it doesn`t matter who you have in charge, Trump, Obama, Blair, Farage etc etc etc, they are all working for the same people, not us, but themselves and the tiny tiny minority who are perceived to make the World tick. In my view we need more democracy, not less. Centralised power, in any way shape or form, and however dressed up, fails. We pay people to mess up our lives and take us into wars, it almost seems too absurd to be true. I think our current way of doing things is wrong, I think people have recognised that our current way of doing things is wrong, the unfortunate consequence, given that there are no REAL alternatives, is this lurch to the right. The populist parties have identified "with the masses" and people have fallen for it. The idea that the billionaire Trump and his bunch of billionaire chums are the answer is bonkers. They are part of the problem , not the solution. Since the latest collapse of Capitalism ordinary people have had it tough. Who to blame??? The banks, the system, the "leaders of the free World", oligarchs, large multinationals, corrupt officials, greed??? No, lets blame immigrants, foreigners. Trump may last four years, Le Pen may win in France, that Dutch freak with the hair may win in Holland. To be honest I don`t think it really matters, after Trump we may have Hilary, or perhaps Michelle Obama, but we will still have a power system controlled by the few for the few. The Trump and Brexit results have got the mainstream worried, people have actually questioned peoples intelligence and their ability to process information. The current elites have seriously questioned whether the majority of people should have any say in what happens to their lives at all, if it is a mistake to let people vote. That is the scary thing, not Trump or Brexit. But the idea that "the masses" can no longer "cope". What their alternative is I have no idea. But I should imagine it allies itself pretty much with what Trump is currently doing, running things how he sees fit. Hardly progressive. We do need an alternative, but not one that excludes the masses but one that includes the masses. I know that my beliefs are not popular and seem way more scary than the status quo. But for an alternative way of doing things, that doesn`t include the "A" word, (but is pretty close to a society that I would like to see) I stumbled upon this site over the weekend. I think that the current crop of politicians that aren`t allied to the "hard right" should start looking at REAL alternatives to our current sham.

    http://www.participatoryeconomics.info/introduction/

  • Could you please use paragraph breaks......
  • I get very excited when I`m writing.................... But yes, I`m not very good with paragraphs. My use of commas on the other, hand is exemplary.
  • ;weep I`ve just gone on a couple of their links and they use the "A" word. A lot. ;weep Still worth looking at though. A different perspective.
  • My problem with Anarchy is that I think the power vacuum created by it always gets filled by gangsters and oligarchs, which ideally but then evolves into what we have now once the limited nature of their power and the violence needed to maintain it becomes debilitating even to themselves, so it may be better to start with what we have now and refine rather then tear down.

    I agree there are no real alternatives because the benevolent dictator is a bit like a unicorn and we have tried that through our monarchy of old which didn't work out well. I think democracy needs reigning in through control of the information in as best way possible (which might not be too effective). What I find hard at present is the relentless call of 'will of the people' as if democracy is infallible. Essentially if the wrong information or fake news is put in to the machine a result comes out that may not be in the national or global interest and I feel this happened with Trump. The problem is you cannot scrutinise why someone voted and to suggest someone voted with only the most cursory nod to red top headlines and pub chat is again and should not be able to vote without first considering the issue properly due to it's implication and seriousness is again something you are not really allowed to say.

    I would ideally like everyone who votes to have spent time researching, weighing and measuring the information from which an informed view can be taken, so that whatever that view is it is worthy of being counted. The information needs controlling so fake news is eradicated and opinion is not dressed up as fact.

    This is why in theory we have parliaments and congress, lords and senate as we select these people to do the weighing of information for us and pay them to take the time to do it. But that's was what happened with Trump, he won the republican nomination and then the public vote, yet appears completely out of his depth.

    I really don't know what the answer is but I am saddened by the direction headed, the thought of Le Pen, Farage (he will be back ) and Wilders being mainstream politicians with large support bases would have been unthinkable not so long ago.
  • Thing is the people we pay to weigh the information are no more qualified to weigh that information than the rest of us. And once in that position decisions based on logic and the greater good seem to go out of the window when lobbyists and big business come knocking. As far as gangsters go, I would say that the biggest gangsters over the past 200 years have been heads of state.

    Like you, I haven`t got a clue what the answers are, but I don`t see politicians from the main parties offering any real alternatives which is why I think people should be looking at alternatives outside of traditional politics. The problem is, and this is where the media play their part, anyone who suggests anything a little different to the current perceived norms is generally shot down and vilified, and that goes for anyone who is labelled as extreme left or extreme right.

    I lost trust in traditional politicians and traditional solutions years ago. And nothing I have seen from the current crop of politicians and World leaders will convince me otherwise. All as mad as a box of frogs. And as Yeold says above, dangerous.
  • And one final thing. When the likes of Blair and Mandelson start preaching the rights and wrongs of things my blood really does start to boil. I would say that fake news and political spin were invented by these two leeches (and that other nasty piece of work Campbell). ;angry
  • Oh, and C&B, I also think that the ideas of bloody revolution, which were legitimate goals/tactics 100/150 years ago are no longer current and or feasible. And again I agree that effecting change within the current systems/parameters is far more desirable and achievable. The ideas and goals may be revolutionary, but the means of by which they are realised would be gradual. As I`ve said before, I don`t think things will ever change (significantly) in my life time. But as a great man once said:

    "Not whether we accomplish Anarchism today, tomorrow, or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards Anarchism today, tomorrow and always."
  • ;lol

    Did you see the Ikea one?

    image
  • 1 x Alan key ;lol
  • edited February 2017
    MrsGrey, that's genius. ;lol
    Suze, 1 Allen key. ;lol
  • Only if you don't know what 'clairvoyant' means.

  • And even if you think he is prescient ... nothing in the article you linked to supports that.




    So really, if you want to fight his corner, you will have to do better than that. Sorry.






  • Not fighting anything, but it is one hell of a coincidence
  • Not really though
  • Over four hours, the crowd burned about half a dozen cars, vandalized several shopfronts and threw rocks at police. Police spokesman Lars Bystrom confirmed to Sweden's Dagens Nyheter newspaper that an officer fired shots at a rioter but missed. A photographer for the newspaper was attacked by more than a dozen men and his camera was stolen, but ultimately no one was hurt or even arrested
    That's not a riot, that's a standard Saturday in Harlow
  • Actually no one hurt or arrested, that's not Harlow, that's not even Theydon Bois
  • edited February 2017
    simonc said:
    I know what clairvoyant means.


    So in what way was Trump's statements about what had happened in the past in Sweden (which hadn't actually happened, but that's another issue) in any way predicting the future?

    Unless there was a bit in his ramblings where he predicted what would happen?

    And what he predicted actually occurred.

    Which he didn't. And which hasn't.

    Do you actually have any point,simon?


    So I repeat.

    No. He's not clairvoyant.

    Next question?
  • Nothing ever happens in Theydon Bois. Apart from old Forresters sports, and Rod Stewart having a few down the pub
  • edited February 2017

    Riot in Orpington (not Switzerland)
  • Well it's obvious. Trump arranged the trouble, to prove what he said. Warning: this may be an unsubstantiated allegation (tautology there, will this get past the grammarians??) but may be tomorrow's Fake News. You heard it faked here first ;wink
  • "A person who claims to have a supernatural ability to perceive events in the future or beyond normal sensory contact."

    Simon have I missed that? Did your president claim to have a supernatural ability to perceive events in the future?
Sign In or Register to comment.