USA Election

[TheKnightWho]

I have had plenty of experience with these 'non desirables'.

From being told, in person, that I should vote either Labour or Green in GE2015 or else my flat would be burnt down with me inside it, to being falsely accused of assaulting an SJW (whom I'd never encountered either in real life nor online).

They expect conformity from different groups, and anybody who does not think or act as they believe they should is treated as a pariah.

Not all people in minority groups wish to fall in line with this narrow view of the world, and there are many ethnic minorities and homosexuals/bi-sexuals/asexuals/demisexuals etc. who have told them where to stick it, much to their chagrin.

And yet, you seem to have no problem with someone who wants to make everyone who isn't like him a pariah in America, and actually has the power to push it through.

Intolerance of intolerance is not the same as intolerance of a group.

This outrage and entitlement in response to racism, sexism (and many other discriminations) facing a real challenge in the West speaks volumes. It's very telling that you say Yiannopoulos is shut down just for expressing an "opinion", whilst conveniently ignoring and being misleading about how that opinion manifests: hatred, mockery and utterly reprehensible human behaviour that involves targeted, bullying behaviour against those he disagrees with.

I think it also says a lot that you, and others, constantly bring supposed accusations of bigotry against you into every thread, despite the majority of the time being the first ones to actually talk about them. The fact that this narrative of victimhood is clearly on your (and others') minds, and the way in which you act as though it's so ridiculous that you, of all people, might harbour some discriminatory preferences, just makes me think that there's a lot of self-denial and refusal to introspect going on.

When accusations of bigotry are taken more seriously than bigotry itself, there is a real problem.

 

[125Forever]

I feel like you have a lot of stereotypes in your mind, and not very much real experience here. It very much feels like you're just reciting Milo Yiannopoulos, Brendan O'Neill and James Delingpole.

The fact you won't stop banging on about people who you simultaneously seem to think have all the power and yet none at all (now there's a contradiction!) makes me think a) you have a massive chip on your shoulder about something, because SJWs aren't relevant here, and b) you've not really thought this through.

Hmmm... well I feel that you are lucky for not having crossed paths with them.

They think that they have no power, yet when you go to sites like the Huffingdon Post they are over-subscribed with pro-SJW commentary. The liberal media is very much in their grasp.

Besides, nobody is banging on - others have asked what SJW's are so it would be rude not to inform them. I don't like them, and I am prepared to leave it at that - when others post comments and questions they'll expect a reply.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And yet, you seem to have no problem with someone who wants to make everyone who isn't like him a pariah in America, and actually has the power to push it through.

Intolerance of intolerance is not the same as intolerance of a group.

The boot is on the on the other foot, so they are getting their comeuppance.

Either that or they are hot-footing it over to Canada... I wonder if Trudeau will build a wall?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And yet, you seem to have no problem with someone who wants to make everyone who isn't like him a pariah in America, and actually has the power to push it through.

Intolerance of intolerance is not the same as intolerance of a group.

This outrage and entitlement in response to racism, sexism (and many other discriminations) facing a real challenge in the West speaks volumes. It's very telling that you say Yiannopoulos is shut down just for expressing an "opinion", whilst conveniently ignoring and being misleading about how that opinion manifests: hatred, mockery and utterly reprehensible human behaviour that involves targeted, bullying behaviour against those he disagrees with.

Whilst some of the comments and criticisms have been OTT, those being offended are sometimes far from blameless.

No doubt, there is some vile stuff said on the internet, but there is a difference between a joke which somebody chooses to take offence to (and chooses to get hurt by) and a flat out horrible insult which is intended to cause hurt.

I joke about things which can be considered as 'near the knuckle' with friends, but we know it's a joke and I can take being called names. Other people are more sensitive, so you can't say that because one person is/isn't offended then everybody else will be.

As for some of the 'OMG I was crying' comments I've seen on social networks, if it's that bad just switch off. People can be terrible, but I seriously doubt that every bad comment made by Milo et al was infact serious or worthy of the attention in the first place.

The best way to beat a real racist/homophobe/misogynist? Ignore them - no oxygen = no audience = no reason to be.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And yet, you seem to have no problem with someone who wants to make everyone who isn't like him a pariah in America, and actually has the power to push it through.

Intolerance of intolerance is not the same as intolerance of a group.

This outrage and entitlement in response to racism, sexism (and many other discriminations) facing a real challenge in the West speaks volumes. It's very telling that you say Yiannopoulos is shut down just for expressing an "opinion", whilst conveniently ignoring and being misleading about how that opinion manifests: hatred, mockery and utterly reprehensible human behaviour that involves targeted, bullying behaviour against those he disagrees with.

I think it also says a lot that you, and others, constantly bring supposed accusations of bigotry against you into every thread, despite the majority of the time being the first ones to actually talk about them. The fact that this narrative of victimhood is clearly on your (and others') minds, and the way in which you act as though it's so ridiculous that you, of all people, might harbour some discriminatory preferences, just makes me think that there's a lot of self-denial and refusal to introspect going on.

When accusations of bigotry are taken more seriously than bigotry itself, there is a real problem.

Hmmm....I see. I deserve it for not falling in to line. Now where's the 'Block Bigot' button?

 

[TheKnightWho]

The boot is on the on the other foot, so they are getting their comeuppance.

Either that or they are hot-footing it over to Canada... I wonder if Trudeau will build a wall?

This is just moral relativism. You seem to think it doesn't matter what someone's views are - whatever the effect they might have on the world - so long as everyone gets treated the same. This is patently absurd.

I'm not responding to the rest because this is the crux of the issue here.

Hmmm....I see. I deserve it for not falling in to line. Now where's the 'Block Bigot' button?

Who said you deserve it? Get over yourself - your victim complex is showing. Never ceases to amaze me how oversensitive the very people who talk about "Generation Snowflake" actually are.

 

[125Forever]

Did you report that threatening behaviour to the Police? What was the outcome?

I did, and the police did speak with the person responsible.

The guy behind the abuse did apologise (eventually) but said that he had done the threats because a) he wanted to show off and b) he was upset that I wouldn't agree with him and so thought that I should be punished.

He did agree to modify his behaviour, so I decided not to go ahead with legal proceedings. Glad to say he has not bothered me since, although he is still online in the Facebook SJW communities.

 

[WelshBluebird]

No doubt, there is some vile stuff said on the internet, but there is a difference between a joke which somebody chooses to take offence to (and chooses to get hurt by) and a flat out horrible insult which is intended to cause hurt.

Not sure I can agree with that.

Firstly, Twitter and the like are public sites. There is no filter or context. Something that is meant as a joke can very very easily come across as an ugly attack on a minority group. It is very different to showing off infront of your mates down the pub or whatever.

And secondly, the more important point, jokes are not always harmless. Quite often they mask real dangerous opinions and views on the part of the person, or encourage those opinions in others. We do not live in a vacuum from other people's actions, and spreading vile jokes tends to just stoke the fires of those ugly views.

As for your comments about SJW's, I think you just need to calm down. There is literally nothing wrong in protecting the rights of minorities, ensuring that people are not abused just because they are different and trying to stop discrimination of all kinds, and the world would be a better place if we all did. Sure, a small minority of mainly keyboard warriors go a bit nuts, but that is the case with any group of people on the internet (have a look at the alt right if you really want to be scared).

 

[125Forever]

Not at all, The Knight Who, merely testing you out on that reply.

As for discrimination, I try not to discriminate, although with certain folk this is sadly nigh but impossible and some definitely deserve it IMO.

Getting back to the subject of the Election - do I feel sorry for those people upset that Trump is now going to be POTUS? Not at all - they need to accept defeat and realise that they got it wrong. The USA did not vote for hate, it voted against what it had become under Obama and people rightly demanded change which is its right.

Besides, 'racism' and 'hatred' have been banded around as insults for so long that they have lost their meaning. Calling somebody a racist now isn't going to offend them,they are just going to think 'so what, bore off.' The real losers in this have been the genuine victims of racism - the ones called n-er etc. and they are owed a big apology.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Not at all, The Knight Who, merely testing you out on that reply.

As for discrimination, I try not to discriminate, although with certain folk this is sadly nigh but impossible and some definitely deserve it IMO.

Getting back to the subject of the Election - do I feel sorry for those people upset that Trump is now going to be POTUS? Not at all - they need to accept defeat and realise that they got it wrong. The USA did not vote for hate, it voted against what it had become under Obama and people rightly demanded change which is its right.

Besides, 'racism' and 'hatred' have been banded around as insults for so long that they have lost their meaning. Calling somebody a racist now isn't going to offend them,they are just going to think 'so what, bore off.' The real losers in this have been the genuine victims of racism - the ones called n-er etc. and they are owed a big apology.

So you don't feel for those who will suffer if Trump does do what he has said?

For those transgender people who will no longer be protected when it comes to bathroom use.
For those gay or bisexual people who will no longer be protected against discrimination by the law.
For those women who feel unsafe because the president thinks it is OK to "grab them by the pussy".
For the women who will no longer get free or subsidized birth control.
For the millions of Americans who will no longer have health insurance.
For those hispanics who will have to deal with growing discrimination and intolerance.
For those Muslims who will have to sign up to some kind of Nazi like database.
And for anyone who is "different" because the racists, xenophobes, sexist and misogynists think they have won the right to do whatever the hell they want now because one of theirs is president.
Hell, even the white working class folk who voted for Trump because he promised to bring their jobs back, when we all know that will probably not happen.

All of those groups are "real" victims here, and a large number of them will suffer a lot worse than being called the n word.

As for calling someone a racist or whatever, it isn't meant to be an insult. It is meant to call people out on vile behaviour.

 

[125Forever]

Not sure I can agree with that.

Firstly, Twitter and the like are public sites. There is no filter or context. Something that is meant as a joke can very very easily come across as an ugly attack on a minority group. It is very different to showing off infront of your mates down the pub or whatever.

Fair comment, interpretation of what is/has been said can be problematic

And secondly, the more important point, jokes are not always harmless. Quite often they mask real dangerous opinions and views on the part of the person, or encourage those opinions in others. We do not live in a vacuum from other people's actions, and spreading vile jokes tends to just stoke the fires of those ugly views.

Hmmm... not sure that I agree wholly. Jimmy Carr and Frankie Boyle, for instance, have come out with sick jokes about children but neither has been in any real trouble because of what they've said. Now, a club comedian can make a joke about a fat girl and the whole of social media will demand his head on a platter the next day.

As for your comments about SJW's, I think you just need to calm down. There is literally nothing wrong in protecting the rights of minorities, ensuring that people are not abused just because they are different and trying to stop discrimination of all kinds, and the world would be a better place if we all did. Sure, a small minority of mainly keyboard warriors go a bit nuts, but that is the case with any group of people on the internet (have a look at the alt right if you really want to be scared).

You are right with the 'there is nothing wrong with protecting the rights of minorities' yet I wish SJW's would actually do more of that rather than whine and threaten people who dare to disagree with them and not just for a few minorities but for everybody in need of help.

 

[backontrack]

Denial.

Crap, I've just woken up and want to go back to sleep for a long time.

Anger.

****.

Fear.

Erm... this is scary.

Bargaining.

If we are looking for positives out of this messy situation, I guess that it might make Brexit a bit easier to see out. That and we might concede the title of most deranged electorate to America.

And finally...acceptance.

It seems that Clinton has now officially conceded.

What a night that was. No-one predicted that.


Hearing the news was bad.

[YOUTUBE]31g0YE61PLQ[/YOUTUBE][YOUTUBE]BrUFn-ZN6Go[/YOUTUBE]


It can't get any worse, can it?


How quickly does impeachment start?

 

[125Forever]

So you don't feel for those who will suffer if Trump does do what he has said?

For those transgender people who will no longer be protected when it comes to bathroom use.

A lot has been made of this - surely just build a toilet (or two) for Transgender people. Toilets are built for different sexes and abilities, so more toilets won't hurt

For those gay or bisexual people who will no longer be protected against discrimination by the law.

I doubt that society will turn on the gays/bisexuals and asexuals - if they bring money in (Gay Weddings bring in millions of $ of revenue in the USA alone) then I doubt there will be an issue. You will always have people who don't like gays, but hey you can't force people to like each other.

For those women who feel unsafe because the president thinks it is OK to "grab them by the pussy".

I highly suspect this is just idiot talk or small talk - I do not believe at all Trump would literally do that.

For the women who will no longer get free or subsidized birth control.

Depending on your stance on 'Pro Choice' this is either a good thing or a bad thing

For the millions of Americans who will no longer have health insurance.

There are many Americans that didn't want Obamacare in the first place though

For those hispanics who will have to deal with growing discrimination and intolerance.

I'm sure they know how to phone 911

For those Muslims who will have to sign up to some kind of Nazi like database.

Yet the leader of 'Muslims For Trump' said he had no problem with this, if it keeps Jihadists out of America?

And for anyone who is "different" because the racists, xenophobes, sexist and misogynists think they have won the right to do whatever the hell they want now because one of theirs is president.

There was also an underclass of people who felt 'different' because they felt their country was no longer theirs - they rebelled at the Ballot Box.

All of those groups are "real" victims here, and a large number of them will suffer a lot worse than being called the n word.

As for calling someone a racist or whatever, it isn't meant to be an insult. It is meant to call people out on vile behaviour.

It should be used that way, but at times it isn't. You can be called a racist online even if you have a differing POV to somebody.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Social Justice Warriors are, in the main, young Millennials from well-to-do backgrounds. They claim to be anti-racist and anti-homophobic and pro-love, yet they are quite venomous about anybody who disagrees with any facet of what they say.

A number of them are against CIS white males (CIS meaning identifying as denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity conforms with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex; not transgender.) and hate them just for being who they are. They are also anti-Patriarchy and see offence even where none is implied, even to go as far as saying that they are 'triggered' when somebody disagrees with them (for 'triggered', imagine a Panic Attack or PTSD).

In effect, they are a bunch of brats who have had it easy and so feel guilty about this and so try to identify with a cause. They are used to having things their way and, when they can't get it, they go on protests to demand what is theirs - they rant about privilege and that everything is wrong in the world and only they are the answer.

A number of SJW's, however, are now realigning themselves as AJW's or Actual Justice Warriors. These people care more about society than identity politics and gender identities etc. and see the bigger picture rather than partaking in group-think and echo-chambering what has been said by their clique over and over again. AJW's actually go back to the roots of social justice and don't just focus on race and gender - they focus on environmentalism, charity, financial inequalities, old-style feminism (not the modern 'kill anything with a penis' type of feminism), community actions and issues etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Notice that I said that they CLAIM to be. This is an actual conversation between a white SJW and a black policeman:

http://i.imgur.com/FOclNWn.jpg

The white SJW tries to inform the black policeman that he knows nothing about racism, which is the antithesis of what SJW's say that they stand for - understanding, tolerance and love.

You need to stop reading Breitbart, mate.

 

[Phil.]

Have a look and listen from 25th October.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHCul_DIM_4

 

[WelshBluebird]

It should be used that way, but at times it isn't. You can be called a racist online even if you have a differing POV to somebody.

Based on your replies, it sounds like you don't believe government should have any role in protecting vulnerable minorities. Fair enough in the case, I totally disagree but that is your opinion. Why not state that from the start though rather than try to blame those who do think government should intervene?

 

[GatwickDepress]

Who has the all-powerful SJW conspiracy infiltrated? Are you next?

You need to stop reading Breitbart, mate.

+1.

 

[125Forever]

Based on your replies, it sounds like you don't believe government should have any role in protecting vulnerable minorities. Fair enough in the case, I totally disagree but that is your opinion. Why not state that from the start though rather than try to blame those who do think government should intervene?

True, I believe in small government and the ability of people to police themselves.

Also, a lot of these minorities aren't as vulnerable IMO as you make out - again just my opinion. I don't think that every homosexual, black, hispanic etc. is meek and helpless and many of them can fight their own battles as so they should (again IMO). I can admire and respect why people (who are genuine and not just in it to look cool to their friends) want to help them out for altruistic reasons, but the best way you can help them IMO is to treat them as you would anybody else - a pet hate of mine is people who treat homosexual people better than they do their own heterosexual kind. Umm, you should just treat everybody the same (as human beings) and not make allowances based on some notion of 'privilege'.

People are talking about Trump as if it is the end of the world, whilst totally ignoring the one guy who could bring about the end of the world over in North Korea. Then again, I don't know if threatening to press the nukes button is homophobic, racist, misogynistic or what...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You need to stop reading Breitbart, mate.

Didn't realise we were mates, when did that happen?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Who has the all-powerful SJW conspiracy infiltrated? Are you next?


+1.

John McCririck has got you as evens 6/4 on

 

[WelshBluebird]

True, I believe in small government and the ability of people to police themselves.

Also, a lot of these minorities aren't as vulnerable IMO as you make out - again just my opinion. I don't think that every homosexual, black, hispanic etc. is meek and helpless and many of them can fight their own battles as so they should (again IMO). I can admire and respect why people (who are genuine and not just in it to look cool to their friends) want to help them out for altruistic reasons, but the best way you can help them IMO is to treat them as you would anybody else - a pet hate of mine is people who treat homosexual people better than they do their own heterosexual kind. Umm, you should just treat everybody the same (as human beings) and not make allowances based on some notion of 'privilege'.

You see, my opinion is one of the job's of the state is to protect its population, and I see part of that protection is to legislate where required to prevent discrimination and abuse.

As for treating everyone the same, I agree. But we don't live in a perfect world, sadly some people like to treat others as less than them just because they are gay, black, female, whatever, hence why we need legislation to try to stop that.

This isn't about seeing some people as "helpless". This is about stopping people from discriminating in the first place.
So the way I see it, I do treat everyone the same. Everyone gets the same protections from abuse and discrimination. Everyone is allowed to love as they see fit (gay, straight, whatever). Everyone gets the same opportunities, black, white, male or female. If we just left it for "people to police themselves", we wouldn't get that because some people need the extra push of the law / the government to actually not be a bigot.

 

[125Forever]

Unfortunately, you can't educate certain people - my POV then would be to not bother with those people who don't want to learn, adapt and change and to focus on those who do get the message.

This will annoy people but some people are racist and some people are homophobic, misogynist etc. and maybe we just have to accept that as a fact.

The way that you beat them is not by having flame wars and threatening them online - simply ignore them. No oxygen and no audience means that they won't succeed. Either that or talk with these people and find out why they think the way they do - as I said before, the 'Ban Hammer' mentality is old hat and it creates more problems than it solves IMO.

(Edit: Also, why should somebody who is one of these 'bad guys/gals' even want to change and be a better person when they've already been judged as being a 'terrible person for life'? Would you want to be friends with somebody who was racist/sexist/homophobic etc. but who has changed their tune? I know of many people who would still treat them as if they were the worst person ever, which kind of defeats the purpose?)

It depends how far you want the Government to intervene in order to protect people - for me, I am happy for little to no intervention (except for if, say, a 9/11 type incident happens here - then I believe the Government has to act in the best interests of the people). I would not be comfortable with the state ruling my life and telling me what to do and think - that would be going too far and beyond authority IMO.

 

[EM2]

Unfortunately, you can't educate certain people - my POV then would be to not bother with those people who don't want to learn, adapt and change and to focus on those who do get the message.

This will annoy people but some people are racist and some people are homophobic, misogynist etc. and maybe we just have to accept that as a fact.

The way that you beat them is not by having flame wars and threatening them online - simply ignore them. No oxygen and no audience means that they won't succeed. Either that or talk with these people and find out why they think the way they do - as I said before, the 'Ban Hammer' mentality is old hat and it creates more problems than it solves IMO.

Contradictory, no?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Unfortunately, you can't educate certain people - my POV then would be to not bother with those people who don't want to learn, adapt and change and to focus on those who do get the message.

This will annoy people but some people are racist and some people are homophobic, misogynist etc. and maybe we just have to accept that as a fact.

The way that you beat them is not by having flame wars and threatening them online - simply ignore them. No oxygen and no audience means that they won't succeed. Either that or talk with these people and find out why they think the way they do - as I said before, the 'Ban Hammer' mentality is old hat and it creates more problems than it solves IMO.

(Edit: Also, why should somebody who is one of these 'bad guys/gals' even want to change and be a better person when they've already been judged as being a 'terrible person for life'? Would you want to be friends with somebody who was racist/sexist/homophobic etc. but who has changed their tune? I know of many people who would still treat them as if they were the worst person ever, which kind of defeats the purpose?)

It depends how far you want the Government to intervene in order to protect people - for me, I am happy for little to no intervention (except for if, say, a 9/11 type incident happens here - then I believe the Government has to act in the best interests of the people). I would not be comfortable with the state ruling my life and telling me what to do and think - that would be going too far and beyond authority IMO.

We are looking at this from two different perspectives I think.
I don't want to change people. I don't give a damn if someone changes or not. If you want a personal honest answer then I actually pity some of them because in part I see such views as toxic to yourself as a person, and in another part I see much of it as misplaced blame (e.g. with some of the xenophobia around Brexit and a lot of issues being blamed on immigrants / refugees rather than those actually responsible).

What I want is to ensure that those who are most likely to be discriminated against by those people are protected against it by law (so there is some comeback and deterrence), and that law is updated so it isn't itself discriminatory (e.g. gay marriage).

As for if someone has turned a new leaf so to speak, then good on them! It takes a lot to admit that you were wrong about something. Especially when it comes to identity and your view on the world.

 

[Richard_B]

It should be used that way, but at times it isn't. You can be called a racist online even if you have a differing POV to somebody.

Usually by having a different viewpoint that is racist.

 

[DarloRich]

You need to stop reading Breitbart, mate.

but that is exactly what those sort of sites and outlets trade on: ignorance and fear.

Certain people lap it up. You have to ask why they lack the ability to grade and sort information and look beyond it for the real story. Most rational people ( of whatever political view) can see through this laughable paranoid conspiracy theory rubbish. Why can't everyone?

it is that fear and ignorance people like Trump and Farage use to build their power base.

 

[Railops]

Usually by having a different viewpoint that is racist.

So you're saying if someone is called a racist online they probably are ?

 

[125Forever]

Contradictory, no?

Not really, you talk with them and give them a chance - if they are still not going to change after that then it's probably best not to bother.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

but that is exactly what those sort of sites and outlets trade on: ignorance and fear.

Certain people lap it up. You have to ask why they lack the ability to grade and sort information and look beyond it for the real story. Most rational people ( of whatever political view) can see through this laughable paranoid conspiracy theory rubbish. Why can't everyone?

it is that fear and ignorance people like Trump and Farage use to build their power base.

I suppose that you think that RT and Euro News are similarly wrong, because they don't say what you want them to?

This may be uncomfortable, but organisations like the BBC, ITV and SKY are no longer trusted by many people - the BBC is perceived by some to be too biased towards the left, for instance. As far as the BBC goes, it is a shame that a once great organisation has been laid low:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

Plus, let us not forget the now infamous Mr. Savile and how the BBC hushed that all up. With regards to independent journalism and research,that is practically non-existent now and stories will be slanted left or right to appease the audiences. Now, if the BBC was wholly independent and accountable directly to the licence fee payer, I might be prepared to accept it more than I do so now.

Why can't everybody accept your view, Rich? Hmmm, maybe because we are all different and not everybody wants to see things from one point of view. I'm an atheist, so am I wrong because I don't believe in a deity? I mean, are you going to call me silly because I don't believe in a bearded man in the sky or a flying spaghetti monster.

Fear and ignorance also means that people just cow-tow and accept one POV only - the world is full of more than one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Usually by having a different viewpoint that is racist.

There I would disagree. Yes, as previously mentioned, where it is offensive it should be highlighted - but to call somebody racist because, for example, you tell them that you don't believe in God (which I don't, I am atheist) and they get offended because they do and they use words like racist and bigoted out of context (which is what I've been trying to highlight), then it's wrong and stupid.

 

[EM2]

the BBC is perceived by some to be too biased towards the left, for instance.

And by just as many to be biased towards the right. Which suggests that they're not really biased at all.

 

[125Forever]

And by just as many to be biased towards the right. Which suggests that they're not really biased at all.

That is a fair comment, and shows that the BBC is viewed as biased by differing sides. Hence it needs to move towards neutrality.

 

[cf111]

President Trump... I'm not sure what version of reality we've slipped in to but at least it won't be boring .

 

[125Forever]

Makes you wonder though - who would have thought that Brexit and Trump would have been realities in 2016?

Very much changing times and shifting sands... 2017 promises to be a very interesting year, maybe even the most important in the history of politics.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Have a look and listen from 25th October.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHCul_DIM_4

Ah, Mr. Condell - well spotted that man!

 

[EM2]

President Trump... I'm not sure what version of reality we've slipped in to but at least it won't be boring .

It'll be like the alternative 1985 from Back To The Future II.

 

[125Forever]

It'll be like the alternative 1985 from Back To The Future II.

Now now... just because Alternative 1985 had Biff with blonde hair and living in a hotel...

 

[AlterEgo]

That is a fair comment, and shows that the BBC is viewed as biased by differing sides. Hence it needs to move towards neutrality.

Move towards neutrality from where exactly?

If people equally criticise it for being too left wing and too right wing, does that not suggest it probably has the right balance?