O/T:- Trump Presidency 2.0 [hic sunt dracones]

[SwalePie]

Or, like Swale, you can throw logic out the window and believe whatever narratives your masters tell you in full confidence that you could never be fooled. As Samuel Clemens famously said, it is easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled!

Or, like Andy, you can throw logic out of the window and believe whatever narratives your masters tell you in full confidence that you could never be fooled. Andy chooses to believe the Kremlin's version of reality. I prefer others. Don't forget that your Clemens quote regarding fooling people also works both ways Andy.

I don't believe everything any particular medium or source tells me, that would make me a fool. I do, however, carefully select which media are deemed most trustworthy by the most informed people on such matters. Interestingly, the BBC tends to feature at, or near, the top of those lists and research results, particularly on a global basis.

It's a very sensible idea to question sources' validity and verity. It isn't a good idea to automatically believe or disbelieve them. That applies to the BBC, The Grauniad, The Telegraph and, obviously, to The Kremlin and it's networks.

[HeroPie1862]

The best way to get news is to read reuters or AP, then make your own choice.

Branded news will always have an agenda, and biased thinking will then lead itself to confirmation bias so you either read news from both sides of the spectrum or read neutral news.

Edit: This requires you to have critical thinking skills and not wanting to be spoon fed.

[Jampie]

The video I posted shows claims by many American politicians, including Joe Biden, saying they wanted to put an end to the pipeline. I will leave you to decipher for yourself the obvious motivations behind their own claims. Seymour Hersh also wrote an article detailing how it was done that I am sure you have read.

Nope, haven't read the article by Freegore Slarsh or whoever. Is there evidence in it?

The pipeline was shut down. What would the US gain from destroying a shut down pipeline? You have never answered this rather fundamental question.

You want me to believe... politicians now? No, wait, down below you say I shouldn't... so only when they agree with the kremlin narrative?

These statements the pollies made about the pipeline, what was the context? Were they made before the war? Was it about worrying that germany was too reliant on Russian gas? Those concerns were borne out weren't they...

And I did not say everything the BBC say is fabricated. I said that I do not trust any of it at face value, with the exceptions I already noted. When someone is proven to be a contemptuous liar, as you have admitted you believe the media and politicians are, then even if you claim to trust them to tell the truth roughly 80% of the time, how can you know which of their claims fall under the 80% and which fall under the 20%? It is only logical to be sceptical of 100% of it. That does not mean that 100% is fabricated, it means that 100% is subject to possible doubt.

That's a relief, you sound marginally saner to me when you say that. A minute ago we were living in a matrix though. That was disconcerting.

To answer your question, like you (paragraph above you, not Neo-Andy), I read an article and compare it with my knowledge of the world, other sources, the context, and the possible motivations of the authors, editors etc. Like most adults I guess. An article, no matter who writes it, is just a datapoint to me. More datapoints means a clearer picture. But yeah, generally a BBC datapoint is a hell of a lot stronger than a murdoch press one or a corpo-owned news one or some random video by some random guy. But no source is infallible.

Or, like Swale, you can throw logic out the window and believe whatever narratives your masters tell you in full confidence that you could never be fooled. As Samuel Clemens famously said, it is easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled!

Who are my masters? What are you talking about? Are we back in the matrix now?

[MarcusCole]

The best way to get news is to read reuters or AP, then make your own choice.

Branded news will always have an agenda, and biased thinking will then lead itself to confirmation bias so you either read news from both sides of the spectrum or read neutral news.

Edit: This requires you to have critical thinking skills and not wanting to be spoon fed.

Agree with this but even those two have slipped up on occasion but they are far better than most. The left wing media lie about things just as does the right.

[andy6025]

Or, like Andy, you can throw logic out of the window and believe whatever narratives your masters tell you in full confidence that you could never be fooled. Andy chooses to believe the Kremlin's version of reality. I prefer others. Don't forget that your Clemens quote regarding fooling people also works both ways Andy.

Except that you have failed to show that I take the Kremlin version of reality at face value. I do not think I have ever posted a link to the Kremlin on this website. Can you show that I have?

It goes without saying that we are all susceptible to deception, and of course that includes me. But thank you nevertheless for arriving at that obvious conclusion.

I don't believe everything any particular medium or source tells me, that would make me a fool. I do, however, carefully select which media are deemed most trustworthy by the most informed people on such matters.

Who, pray tell, are these most informed people? Is it the supposed expert guests on news programs such as the ones assembled in the clip I posted above? As shown, they certainly are not adverse to telling either bald faced porkies or being so stupid that they cannot tell their absurd claims from reality. Are they the experts you trust? If not, then whom?

It's a very sensible idea to question sources' validity and verity. It isn't a good idea to automatically believe or disbelieve them. That applies to the BBC, The Grauniad, The Telegraph and, obviously, to The Kremlin and it's networks.

That is indeed a great principle to follow. But when have you ever read or watched a Kremlin source? I would bet my bottom dollar that you have not tuned into or read a single one in the past 6 months. And yet here you are automatically dismissing them in violation of your own claimed principle. It is as I said above - people tend to believe in abstract theory that they are fairly critical of sources, and yet they consistently violate their own principles. Me thinks thou doth protest too much!

[SwalePie]

Except that you have failed to show that I take the Kremlin version of reality at face value. I do not think I have ever posted a link to the Kremlin on this website. Can you show that I have?

It goes without saying that we are all susceptible to deception, and of course that includes me. But thank you nevertheless for arriving at that obvious conclusion.



Who, pray tell, are these most informed people? Is it the supposed expert guests on news programs such as the ones assembled in the clip I posted above? As shown, they certainly are not adverse to telling either bald faced porkies or being so stupid that they cannot tell their absurd claims from reality. Are they the experts you trust? If not, then whom?



That is indeed a great principle to follow. But when have you ever read or watched a Kremlin source? I would bet my bottom dollar that you have not tuned into or read a single one in the past 6 months. And yet here you are automatically dismissing them in violation of your own claimed principle. It is as I said above - people tend to believe in abstract theory that they are fairly critical of sources, and yet they consistently violate their own principles. Me thinks thou doth protest too much!

Then you'd be wrong on pretty much all counts. Assumption is rarely a smart strategy Andy.

ETA: I will freely admit that I made a mistake getting involved in this thread as I am by no means an expert on the topics being discussed, similar to many other posters on it I suspect. You clearly have a lot of time on your hands to go into long replies and so on. Unfortunately I don't have that time (nor the inclination) so I'll leave you in peace. Apologies, by the way, as my opinions seem to have offended you a little and put you on the 'offensive defensive'. That was not my intention.

[andy6025]

Nope, haven't read the article by Freegore Slarsh or whoever. Is there evidence in it?

The pipeline was shut down. What would the US gain from destroying a shut down pipeline? You have never answered this rather fundamental question.

You want me to believe... politicians now? No, wait, down below you say I shouldn't... so only when they agree with the kremlin narrative?

These statements the pollies made about the pipeline, what was the context? Were they made before the war? Was it about worrying that germany was too reliant on Russian gas? Those concerns were borne out weren't they...



That's a relief, you sound marginally saner to me when you say that. A minute ago we were living in a matrix though. That was disconcerting.

To answer your question, like you (paragraph above you, not Neo-Andy), I read an article and compare it with my knowledge of the world, other sources, the context, and the possible motivations of the authors, editors etc. Like most adults I guess. An article, no matter who writes it, is just a datapoint to me. More datapoints means a clearer picture. But yeah, generally a BBC datapoint is a hell of a lot stronger than a murdoch press one or a corpo-owned news one or some random video by some random guy. But no source is infallible.



Who are my masters? What are you talking about? Are we back in the matrix now?

We never left the Matrix. As Rene Descartes proved to us, I think therefore I am is still the only indubitable truth in which one can hold absolute certainty.

As for the pipeline, if you never even heard of Seymour Hersh or read his exposay (intentionally misspelled to try and avoid this sites formatting errors) on the pipeline bombings, then I am afraid you are woefully short on datapoints. As I mentioned before and as is exemplified by the short video, all of your talking heads are singing from the same hymn book, and they will not let anyone with a dissenting view anywhere near the mainstream airwaves. You think you have many data points, but it is merely an echo of a single one. I would further go out on a limb and guess that you likewise have not read or watched any supposed Kremlin sources for comparison. As such, all these claims of comparing and contrasting various sources like an adult is nothing but wishful lip service to an abstract set of principles that are jettisoned speedy quick before you ever entered the debate.

[andy6025]

Then you'd be wrong on pretty much all counts. Assumption is rarely a smart strategy Andy.

Ah yes, Swale reads Russian news. Spin me another.

[SwalePie]

Ah yes, Swale reads Russian news. Spin me another.

You'd be amazed Andy!

[Jampie]

We never left the Matrix. As Rene Descartes proved to us, I think therefore I am is still the only indubitable truth in which one can hold absolute certainty.

As for the pipeline, if you never even heard of Seymour Hersh or read his exposay (intentionally misspelled to try and avoid this sites formatting errors) on the pipeline bombings, then I am afraid you are woefully short on datapoints. As I mentioned before and as is exemplified by the short video, all of your talking heads are singing from the same hymn book, and they will not let anyone with a dissenting view anywhere near the mainstream airwaves. You think you have many data points, but it is merely an echo of a single one. I would further go out on a limb and guess that you likewise have not read or watched any supposed Kremlin sources for comparison. As such, all these claims of comparing and contrasting various sources like an adult is nothing but wishful lip service to an abstract set of principles that are jettisoned speedy quick before you ever entered the debate.

Can you list three things you disagree with Putin about?

It's *hilarious* you're accusing me of not having enough viewpoints. You! I don't pay attention to crackpots, fools, conspiracy theorists (who provide zero evidence) or people who repeat whatever russian foreign ops want them to. That leaves a LOT of valid sources for stuff, most of which aren't mainstream news.

[andy6025]

Can you list three things you disagree with Putin about?

It's *hilarious* you're accusing me of not having enough viewpoints. You! I don't pay attention to crackpots, fools, conspiracy theorists (who provide zero evidence) or people who repeat whatever russian foreign ops want them to. That leaves a LOT of valid sources for stuff, most of which aren't mainstream news.

Here you go, here?s 5 things:

His raising of the retirement age
His embracing of the ROC.
His overly anti-LGBTQ position - it goes too far imo.
His anti-communist position
He is too soft on the west and tried for far too long to be conciliatory. The last was a massive blunder for which his people may never forgive him.

[Lullapie]

Yes that's Trump's comms strategy in a nutshell. He is perhaps the greatest root cause of the proliferation of conspiracy theories and culture-war gaslighting in recent times.

The final part above is the problem. You start to question both the dubious sources and the trustworthy ones until you become so distrustful that you don't know what to believe any more...so you believe nothing but him and his people's BS. He depends on that.

I believe all sides talk bull$hit. I'm not bothered who says it, left or right. The main argument at the moment is that much of the stuff peddled by the Democrats in the last five years as being fact, is only now being proved to be rubbish in the simplest sense or state funded propaganda in a more scary way.

It's not true to say that Trump is greatest root of conspiracy theories in recent times, unless you believe everything that he says is 100% accurate when he says it. It just shows that someone either literally believes all his comments to be true when he says them, which makes them exceptionally gullible (which I very much doubt in your case) or they know them to be Trump just blustering, but then show faux disgust to appear offended.

You only have to look at the 2024 US Election in depth to see how much the Democrats created conspiracies, which was in relation to their huge marketing budget, compared to the Republicans.

[Jampie]

I believe all sides talk bull$hit. I'm not bothered who says it, left or right. The main argument at the moment is that much of the stuff peddled by the Democrats in the last five years as being fact, is only now being proved to be rubbish in the simplest sense or state funded propaganda in a more scary way.

What are these things the democrats have said are fact that are lies?

Or state funded propaganda?

It's not true to say that Trump is greatest root of conspiracy theories in recent times, unless you believe everything that he says is 100% accurate when he says it. It just shows that someone either literally believes all his comments to be true when he says them, which makes them exceptionally gullible (which I very much doubt in your case) or they know them to be Trump just blustering, but then show faux disgust to appear offended.

You only have to look at the 2024 US Election in depth to see how much the Democrats created conspiracies, which was in relation to their huge marketing budget, compared to the Republicans.

What are these democrat conspiracies?

[Elite_Pie]

I believe all sides talk bull$hit. I'm not bothered who says it, left or right.

Ah, another of your fair and balanced reviews from the unbiased centre! Except that as usual you go on to slate the Democrats and defend Trump.

You have always supported far right views and clearly hate the left. Stop trying to pretend you're balanced, it embarrasses you, although it does add a bit of comedy value!

[Med Pie]

Not sure what kind of message, pardoning multi million dollar fraudsters sends!

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78713qn26yo