Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

[8den]

So your claiming bill Clinton wasn't on epsteins plane, and that after his conviction the clintons didn't accept money from him . Simply on the basis the mail is right wing.

epsteins close chum and alleged procurer is clearly pictured at chelsea clintons wedding too.

Kind of proving my point on the clintons continually getting a free ride from liberals wether its rape, multiple rape accusations, nonce associates or genocide .

The Allegations about Epstein are pretty vile. But suggesting that Clinton knew, or participated in any of it are baseless. It's akin to posting photos of Prince Charles and Jimmy Saville as proof Charles is a Paedophile.

 

[bimble]

If CR wasn't such a morally upstanding person I'd have thought he was having a fierce post-party comedown.

 

[existentialist]

Riggghhhhtttt.....Who pissed in your conflakes.

Anyone who disagreed with him

 

[8den]

Anyone who disagreed with him

You'll notice he hasn't explained the Gaybo thing.

 

[existentialist]

You'll notice he hasn't explained the Gaybo thing.

It's like being in the 1980s all over again.

 

[8den]

It's like being in the 1980s all over again.

He called me a "free stater" A nation that hasn't existed since the mid 30s....

 

[isvicthere?]

He called me a "free stater" A nation that hasn't existed since the mid 30s....

Maybe a reference to this?..

Free State Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[J Ed]

Maybe a reference to this?..

Free State Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No he means in the context of Ireland

 

[8den]

Maybe a reference to this?..

Free State Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No Free Stater in CR mind, refers to the side in the 1920-22 Civil War, who agreed with the terms of the peace treaty with the British at the end of the War of Independence, it allowed for the creation of the Irish Free State, but created the Partition between North and South of Ireland. It's an unforgivable sin in his mind. Almost as wrong as homosexuality in his mind.

 

[8den]

Anyway back to the Donald....

 

[teqniq]

Ive ripped the shit out of the shit you post by pointing to alternative sources . You don't like it so you take your gripe onto another thread

Joker

Only in your head. You have addressed nothing, you are clutching at straws.

 

[elbows]

Bollocks. Pure and simple.

You've said that BBC is equivalent to RT. You've waved in the direction of the Hutton report as proof. RT was and is directly funded by the Kremlin. The 1st station director was a 25you Kremlin appointee with next to no real world journalism. It regularly promotes the exact same party as the state. It avoids criticism of the state like the plague. There is no comparison.

There are plenty of comparisons to be made. Just because they are not identical does not mean all comparisons are deluded bollocks.

The BBC is a state tool. That our political system, level of tolerable criticism, propaganda vulgarity level, nature of when carrot is used and when stick is used, etc is rather different to Russia, is bound to make a big difference to the detail in practice. But you can't use that to dismiss all suggestions that the BBC's voice is narrowed massively by its role as a 'responsible state broadcaster'.

For me the starting point to a balanced view on this shit involves looking at how the BBC describes its own World Service. This has always been an area where the thinly veiled realities bump into the language of fair and balanced journalism.

Most recent example:

BBC World Service gets funding boost from government - BBC News

The government is to invest £85m a year in enhancing BBC services around the world including in Russia, North Korea, the Middle East and Africa.

The money is to help "build the global reach of the World Service" to half a billion people and "increase access to news and information".

"The millions announced today will help the BBC deliver on our commitment to uphold global democracy through accurate, impartial and independent news reporting.

"The World Service is one of the UK's most important cultural exports and one of our best sources of global influence. We can now further build on that."

Analysis by David Silito, media correspondent
The announcement on page 49 of the Government's Strategic Defence Review makes it very clear what this money is all about - soft power. Britain's reputation, values and influence around the World.

Five years later, Chancellor George Osborne has, partially, reversed that cut in return for the BBC expanding services in to North Korea, Russian speaking areas, the Middle East and Africa.

Areas described as suffering from a "democratic deficit" - a shortage of impartial news.

And while the Government will be helping to pay the bills - editorial control remains entirely with the BBC.

Soft power, but don't worry editorial control remains with the BBC. Oh come on.

 

[bimble]

I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that it's a bad thing that BBC wants to expand to for instance north korea?

 

[elbows]

I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that it's a bad thing that BBC wants to expand to for instance north korea?

My point has nothing to do with whether such things are good or bad, just about acknowledging what they are. The state wants the BBC to reach more people in North Korea.

Obviously the sort of news the BBC reports can be incredibly useful, comforting etc to people in certain places at certain times. And in stark contrast to the likes of RT, the BBC style involves a lot of continual effort to maintain credibility and 'standards of journalism'. But thats hardly a pure noble feature in itself, its this platform of general credibility that becomes its greatest asset at times when reality needs to be spun via distortion or omission.

 

[existentialist]

I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that it's a bad thing that BBC wants to expand to for instance north korea?

I think what he's saying - not unreasonably - is that the BBC is, structurally at least, just as much of a propaganda mouthpiece as Russia Today.

The fact that the state it's propagandising for isn't quite as dubious as Russia (though there's increasingly little in it) is another matter...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

My point has nothing to do with whether such things are good or bad, just about acknowledging what they are. The state wants the BBC to reach more people in North Korea.

Obviously the sort of news the BBC reports can be incredibly useful, comforting etc to people in certain places at certain times. And in stark contrast to the likes of RT, the BBC style involves a lot of continual effort to maintain credibility and 'standards of journalism'. But thats hardly a pure noble feature in itself, its this platform of general credibility that becomes its greatest asset at times when reality needs to be spun via distortion or omission.

Yep. Ironically enough, the bit of the bbc that is directly funded by got - ws is effectively an organ of the fo - is also for me by far the best and most interesting, diverse and informative source of information the bbc offers.

It is an exercise in 'soft power' as you say but has benign aspects to it. As does RT.

 

[elbows]

Well even paternalism has some positive aspects and the BBC has never shed that feature since its inception, just softened the tone to suit the era. Its the negatives of that which bother me, and this idea mixes for me with the inclination to be negative about those who find comfort from 'our propaganda' in the propaganda of others.

If the crudest of authoritarian state propaganda is like being trapped in a box, then the BBC is a breath of fresh air but you are still in a cave, horizons are limited in the grand scheme of things even if they are much broader than the shit some regimes would have humans suffer. I can understand a momentary feeling of freshness when stumbling upon an alternative worldview via some other states international 'news' efforts, but if that giddy feeling persists too far beyond the initial rush of 'ooh alternative narratives' then I'm inclined to consider it a wasted opportunity, little more than the swapping of one cave for another.

 

[elbows]

Plus even a cave is too much for some people, a box may provide more comfort and the desired certainty/simplicity of stance. If such restricted headroom does it for someone then ok, but don't expect others to look upon it positively or think they are dealing with someone who is really clued up, or, groan, 'more awake than the sheeple'.

 

[elbows]

And if I try and jam these space analogies into the actual subject of Trump, I don't know what I'd call his worldview/propaganda. I guess its not a box, its a bag with holes in and a very unpleasant residue at the bottom.

 

[bimble]

I think what he's saying - not unreasonably - is that the BBC is, structurally at least, just as much of a propaganda mouthpiece as Russia Today.

ok.. but. The alternative to state funding of a media outlet is.. individual patrons / investors or else advertising sales, right?

Maybe I'm missing the point but saying that Russia Today and the BBC are both equally propaganda machines because they're both state funded seems a bit pointless. I mean, there's no such thing as a pure non-ideological news source, Vogue magazine isn't going to run a story that says 'Women: keep wearing last year's clothes'. etc.

All I'm saying is that I feel very lucky to live here, where Piggate was so much fun, and not in (for instance) Turkey, where 'insulting the president' is now a jailable offence.

 

[laptop]

The quantitative difference is enough to count as qualitative, silly.

.

And: claiming "they're as bad as each other" is astoundingly lazy.

 

[existentialist]

ok.. but. The alternative to state funding of a media outlet is.. individual patrons / investors or else advertising sales, right?

Maybe I'm missing the point but saying that Russia Today and the BBC are both equally propaganda machines because they're both state funded seems a bit pointless. I mean, there's no such thing as a pure non-ideological news source, Vogue magazine isn't going to run a story that says 'Women: keep wearing last year's clothes'. etc.

All I'm saying is that I feel very lucky to live here, where Piggate was so much fun, and not in (for instance) Turkey, where 'insulting the president' is now a jailable offence.

I think we've done quite well with our own State propaganda mouthpiece until recently, although the pressure that has been brought to bear on them by the government in the last few years is...telling.

 

[hipipol]

Back to the Trumpster.....
Somali al Shabaab militants use Donald Trump in recruiting film
Somali al Shabaab militants use Donald Trump in recruiting film

Ah Fame, only thing worse than being talked about etc

He does get noticed and heard
We still all know him as a vile reptilian pile of shite whatever spin his highly paid Liars, oh sorry, PR Men (didn't Davecam once have a job like that?)
All positions, all statements, everything you read or see is at best subjective and must be treated as such
Whatever the current bray the loudest method of policy selection preferred by the Tory Junta, the Beeb will resist, and people listening to outright lies will notice

 

[TomUS]

Hill

Back to the Trumpster.....
Somali al Shabaab militants use Donald Trump in recruiting film
Somali al Shabaab militants use Donald Trump in recruiting film

Ah Fame, only thing worse than being talked about etc

He does get noticed and heard
We still all know him as a vile reptilian pile of shite whatever spin his highly paid Liars, oh sorry, PR Men (didn't Davecam once have a job like that?)
All positions, all statements, everything you read or see is at best subjective and must be treated as such
Whatever the current bray the loudest method of policy selection preferred by the Tory Junta, the Beeb will resist, and people listening to outright lies will notice

Hillary said his anti Muslim stuff would be used by ISIS in recruiting. She wasn't far wrong.

 

[J Ed]

Hill

Hillary said his anti Muslim stuff would be used by ISIS in recruiting. She wasn't far wrong.

She may well have given them the idea

 

[bimble]

Donald Trump is a false flag.. a secret wahhabist working undercover. Explains the unconvincing hair as well.

 

[coley]

ok.. but. The alternative to state funding of a media outlet is.. individual patrons / investors or else advertising sales, right?

Maybe I'm missing the point but saying that Russia Today and the BBC are both equally propaganda machines because they're both state funded seems a bit pointless. I mean, there's no such thing as a pure non-ideological news source, Vogue magazine isn't going to run a story that says 'Women: keep wearing last year's clothes'. etc.

All I'm saying is that I feel very lucky to live here, where Piggate was so much fun, and not in (for instance) Turkey, where 'insulting the president' is now a jailable offence.

Aye the beeb aint perfect far from it , but I don't know of a better PBS, bit of perspective wouldn't go amiss.

 

[gosub]

Donald Trump faces airborne protest in California

That's a seriously skilled bit of skywriting/flying

 

[existentialist]

Donald Trump faces airborne protest in California

That's a seriously skilled bit of skywriting/flying

It's done like a kind of huge smoke-based dot-matrix printing operation nowadays...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

ok.. but. The alternative to state funding of a media outlet is.. individual patrons / investors or else advertising sales, right?

Maybe I'm missing the point but saying that Russia Today and the BBC are both equally propaganda machines because they're both state funded seems a bit pointless. I mean, there's no such thing as a pure non-ideological news source, Vogue magazine isn't going to run a story that says 'Women: keep wearing last year's clothes'. etc.

All I'm saying is that I feel very lucky to live here, where Piggate was so much fun, and not in (for instance) Turkey, where 'insulting the president' is now a jailable offence.

I don't think either Elbows or I are condemning state-tv entirely, merely advising caution and taking it for what it is.

An example I'd give would be reporting of Ukraine and the crimea crisis. Both the bbc and RT were hopelessly one-eyed over that issue, both reporting almost entirely one side's take on things. (Ironically, the one place I did hear some 'balance' from the bbc was on the World Service, the bit more directly under govt control, on which pro-Russian voices were heard.) But compare and contrast the bbc's take on crimea and its take on Kosovo. The one deemed illegitimate, the other legitimate, but it's hard to see exactly why unless you see the political position behind the difference, the political position being that of the political class in the UK. The bbc played a full and active role in the demonisation of Serbia through the 90s and early 2000s.