FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Is it better to ignore or condemn?
Is it better to ignore or condemn?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I wasn't thinking Johnson/Trump, but Corbyn and anti semitism. Thankfully he was eventually suspended from Labour, quite rightly, but the oxygen of publicity throughout was very painful for Jewish friends I have in Manchester. They kept an open mind until the Inquiry concluded, but were relieved when Starmer got rid of him.
But to think Starmer supported him all those years to become PM  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I wasn't thinking Johnson/Trump, but Corbyn and anti semitism. Thankfully he was eventually suspended from Labour, quite rightly, but the oxygen of publicity throughout was very painful for Jewish friends I have in Manchester. They kept an open mind until the Inquiry concluded, but were relieved when Starmer got rid of him.
But to think Starmer supported him all those years to become PM "
I challenge you, should you accept, to reply to a post where you don't use the "what about Labour/Corbyn" defence of the Tories/Trump etc.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I wasn't thinking Johnson/Trump, but Corbyn and anti semitism. Thankfully he was eventually suspended from Labour, quite rightly, but the oxygen of publicity throughout was very painful for Jewish friends I have in Manchester. They kept an open mind until the Inquiry concluded, but were relieved when Starmer got rid of him.
But to think Starmer supported him all those years to become PM "
Due you agree and respect due process?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I wasn't thinking Johnson/Trump, but Corbyn and anti semitism. Thankfully he was eventually suspended from Labour, quite rightly, but the oxygen of publicity throughout was very painful for Jewish friends I have in Manchester. They kept an open mind until the Inquiry concluded, but were relieved when Starmer got rid of him.
But to think Starmer supported him all those years to become PM
Due you agree and respect due process? "
I do. I kept an open mind until the Inquiry concluded, but was relieved when Starmer got rid of him 
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
"
It is a difficult balancing act because the likes of Trump and Boris often lie just to get attention, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I wasn't thinking Johnson/Trump, but Corbyn and anti semitism. Thankfully he was eventually suspended from Labour, quite rightly, but the oxygen of publicity throughout was very painful for Jewish friends I have in Manchester. They kept an open mind until the Inquiry concluded, but were relieved when Starmer got rid of him.
But to think Starmer supported him all those years to become PM
I challenge you, should you accept, to reply to a post where you don't use the "what about Labour/Corbyn" defence of the Tories/Trump etc.
"
With due respect, he can't be defending the tories can he as this thread isn't about tories. Or is it really under the guise of something else? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I wasn't thinking Johnson/Trump, but Corbyn and anti semitism. Thankfully he was eventually suspended from Labour, quite rightly, but the oxygen of publicity throughout was very painful for Jewish friends I have in Manchester. They kept an open mind until the Inquiry concluded, but were relieved when Starmer got rid of him.
But to think Starmer supported him all those years to become PM
I challenge you, should you accept, to reply to a post where you don't use the "what about Labour/Corbyn" defence of the Tories/Trump etc.
With due respect, he can't be defending the tories can he as this thread isn't about tories. Or is it really under the guise of something else?"
Okay "Boris or the Tories".
I challenge you, should you accept, to address the points I make, instead of the endless semantic arguments in an attempt to catch me out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I wasn't thinking Johnson/Trump, but Corbyn and anti semitism. Thankfully he was eventually suspended from Labour, quite rightly, but the oxygen of publicity throughout was very painful for Jewish friends I have in Manchester. They kept an open mind until the Inquiry concluded, but were relieved when Starmer got rid of him.
But to think Starmer supported him all those years to become PM
I challenge you, should you accept, to reply to a post where you don't use the "what about Labour/Corbyn" defence of the Tories/Trump etc.
With due respect, he can't be defending the tories can he as this thread isn't about tories. Or is it really under the guise of something else?"
Our Birmingham correspondent wouldn't do that.
Would he  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
It is a difficult balancing act because the likes of Trump and Boris often lie just to get attention, "
I'm really not sure which is the better answer: ignoring or condemning. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
It is a difficult balancing act because the likes of Trump and Boris often lie just to get attention,
I'm really not sure which is the better answer: ignoring or condemning."
Comedy gold.
Considering the number of threads you've raced to open up or contributed to condemning about Zahawi, Sunaki, Braverman, Patel etc etc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
It is a difficult balancing act because the likes of Trump and Boris often lie just to get attention,
I'm really not sure which is the better answer: ignoring or condemning.
Comedy gold.
Considering the number of threads you've raced to open up or contributed to condemning about Zahawi, Sunaki, Braverman, Patel etc etc "
I can't ask questions on here any more? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
"
What do you mean by "effective"?
Because neither ignoring or calling out seems to effect how people vote, what they think about their chosen political figures. It doesn't seem to make anyone in our government think twice about their behaviour.
It's my opinion, that the national press and broadcasters in this country completely fail in their duty to hold any politicians to account for their behaviour.
We used to have Pacman and others who would grill them.
Just look what happened when Truss when on local radio. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
What do you mean by "effective"?
Because neither ignoring or calling out seems to effect how people vote, what they think about their chosen political figures. It doesn't seem to make anyone in our government think twice about their behaviour.
It's my opinion, that the national press and broadcasters in this country completely fail in their duty to hold any politicians to account for their behaviour.
We used to have Pacman and others who would grill them.
Just look what happened when Truss when on local radio. "
I challenge you, should you accept, to reply to a post where you don't use "Truss" or another Tory politician to bolster your leftist tendencies |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
What do you mean by "effective"?
Because neither ignoring or calling out seems to effect how people vote, what they think about their chosen political figures. It doesn't seem to make anyone in our government think twice about their behaviour.
It's my opinion, that the national press and broadcasters in this country completely fail in their duty to hold any politicians to account for their behaviour.
We used to have Pacman and others who would grill them.
Just look what happened when Truss when on local radio.
I challenge you, should you accept, to reply to a post where you don't use "Truss" or another Tory politician to bolster your leftist tendencies "
1. How are we supposed to discuss Tory politicians without mentioning them?
2. I'm not leftist. Not everyone opposed to self serving narcissistic politics is "leftist". Your attitude is pretty insulting to anyone on the right of politics. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
It is a difficult balancing act because the likes of Trump and Boris often lie just to get attention,
I'm really not sure which is the better answer: ignoring or condemning."
I would always try to condemn, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
It is a difficult balancing act because the likes of Trump and Boris often lie just to get attention,
I'm really not sure which is the better answer: ignoring or condemning.
Comedy gold.
Considering the number of threads you've raced to open up or contributed to condemning about Zahawi, Sunaki, Braverman, Patel etc etc "
Sunaki? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
It is a difficult balancing act because the likes of Trump and Boris often lie just to get attention,
I'm really not sure which is the better answer: ignoring or condemning.
I would always try to condemn, "
Tell us something we don't know! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
It is a difficult balancing act because the likes of Trump and Boris often lie just to get attention,
I'm really not sure which is the better answer: ignoring or condemning.
Comedy gold.
Considering the number of threads you've raced to open up or contributed to condemning about Zahawi, Sunaki, Braverman, Patel etc etc
Sunaki? "
Sunak
Maybe I was thinking of a tsunami of microaggressions |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
What do you mean by "effective"?
Because neither ignoring or calling out seems to effect how people vote, what they think about their chosen political figures. It doesn't seem to make anyone in our government think twice about their behaviour.
It's my opinion, that the national press and broadcasters in this country completely fail in their duty to hold any politicians to account for their behaviour.
We used to have Pacman and others who would grill them.
Just look what happened when Truss when on local radio.
I challenge you, should you accept, to reply to a post where you don't use "Truss" or another Tory politician to bolster your leftist tendencies
1. How are we supposed to discuss Tory politicians without mentioning them?
2. I'm not leftist. Not everyone opposed to self serving narcissistic politics is "leftist". Your attitude is pretty insulting to anyone on the right of politics."
1. Why are we not supposed to discuss Labour politicians?
2. I have never been described as 'insulting to anyone on the right of politics' ha ha
You seem easily confused today |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
Isn’t this point more pertinent in regards to the Conservative Party who have been in government for 12 years ?
An opposition is purely that an opposition, not a government and without power to change anything quickly. If Starmer lies then call him out. Definitely and no argument from me.
Calling out our government for lies and corruption should be the aim of everyone left and right. Has Paterson paid any money back or been fined. Oh it’s ok he’s declared it now. He should be in jail stripped of his pension
Defending lies and corruption only hurts those who do the defending. Boris and Co. are doing very nicely thank you.
Our press is 80% controlled by the Conservative payroll masters so we should not expect any challenges these days.
We also now discover the top man at the bbc may not be as independent as he claims either . Cronyism.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
I'd generally veer towards calling out & condemning. I think it's generally important.
But there's a new breed that really seems to thrive on any media attention. The best examples I know of in that area are Johnson/Trump.
Look how many lies & scandals they have been involved in. And yet they still have supporters that cheer them on. They still have supporters who want them back in power. Any media attention - even highly critical attention - may help them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
What do you mean by "effective"?
Because neither ignoring or calling out seems to effect how people vote, what they think about their chosen political figures. It doesn't seem to make anyone in our government think twice about their behaviour.
It's my opinion, that the national press and broadcasters in this country completely fail in their duty to hold any politicians to account for their behaviour.
We used to have Pacman and others who would grill them.
Just look what happened when Truss when on local radio.
I challenge you, should you accept, to reply to a post where you don't use "Truss" or another Tory politician to bolster your leftist tendencies
1. How are we supposed to discuss Tory politicians without mentioning them?
2. I'm not leftist. Not everyone opposed to self serving narcissistic politics is "leftist". Your attitude is pretty insulting to anyone on the right of politics.
1. Why are we not supposed to discuss Labour politicians?
2. I have never been described as 'insulting to anyone on the right of politics' ha ha
You seem easily confused today "
1. Feel free to start as many threads about Labour corruption, sleaze, lies. Crack on.
2. Then why do you continue to imply only the leftists care about government corruption that occurred in the last 12 years? Again, this is pretty insulting to everyone else. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
"
Sorry just to be clear are you only asking about right wing politicians or do you mean any politician from any party. Personally I would say condemn once all the facts are known and the process is complete. I understand it keeps them in the news but in such circumstances its in a negative way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
Sorry just to be clear are you only asking about right wing politicians or do you mean any politician from any party. Personally I would say condemn once all the facts are known and the process is complete. I understand it keeps them in the news but in such circumstances its in a negative way."
Any politician, any party. It just so happens Trump & Johnson are the clearest examples I can think of of politicians known for lying + scandals who also seemed to really benefit from media attention. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
But does condemning + keeping them in the press in a negative way even nagatively affect them? Trump, for example, was taped bragging about sexual assualt. And AFTER that he still won the presidency. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
Sorry just to be clear are you only asking about right wing politicians or do you mean any politician from any party. Personally I would say condemn once all the facts are known and the process is complete. I understand it keeps them in the news but in such circumstances its in a negative way.
Any politician, any party. It just so happens Trump & Johnson are the clearest examples I can think of of politicians known for lying + scandals who also seemed to really benefit from media attention."
Ok thanks for clarifying it's for all political parties. My answer is the same if for an individual party or all parties |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
Sorry just to be clear are you only asking about right wing politicians or do you mean any politician from any party. Personally I would say condemn once all the facts are known and the process is complete. I understand it keeps them in the news but in such circumstances its in a negative way.
Any politician, any party. It just so happens Trump & Johnson are the clearest examples I can think of of politicians known for lying + scandals who also seemed to really benefit from media attention.
Ok thanks for clarifying it's for all political parties. My answer is the same if for an individual party or all parties"
Total agreement |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"But does condemning + keeping them in the press in a negative way even nagatively affect them? Trump, for example, was taped bragging about sexual assualt. And AFTER that he still won the presidency."
He had a policy people wanted. People voted he won. No matter what his checkered past was. Clearly you can understand that. Keeping them in a negative way in the media just emboldens people. They entrench themselves evenmore.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
It feels worth pointing out the we-must-wait-on-all-the-facts line is an obvious tactic. It's been used time & time again to delay, trying to bury stories.
This tactic also allows those in power to slide in an investigator who they think will do/find whatever outcome is desired. A jolly good sort who knows how the game is played.
Worst case scenario: if an investigation actually ends up finding something damning, the report can be redacted or partially released. Or the PM can just ignore its recommendations anyway. (As Johnson did before.) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"But does condemning + keeping them in the press in a negative way even nagatively affect them? Trump, for example, was taped bragging about sexual assualt. And AFTER that he still won the presidency. He had a policy people wanted. People voted he won. No matter what his checkered past was. Clearly you can understand that. Keeping them in a negative way in the media just emboldens people. They entrench themselves evenmore."
Who knew boasting about sexual assault on tape was a policy people wanted? I guess it was, though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"But does condemning + keeping them in the press in a negative way even nagatively affect them? Trump, for example, was taped bragging about sexual assualt. And AFTER that he still won the presidency. He had a policy people wanted. People voted he won. No matter what his checkered past was. Clearly you can understand that. Keeping them in a negative way in the media just emboldens people. They entrench themselves evenmore.
Who knew boasting about sexual assault on tape was a policy people wanted? I guess it was, though."
He got elected. His policies mattered more. It is the same with Boris. It's kind of like having a favorite football team.You do not stray to the other just because they lost. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"But does condemning + keeping them in the press in a negative way even nagatively affect them? Trump, for example, was taped bragging about sexual assualt. And AFTER that he still won the presidency. He had a policy people wanted. People voted he won. No matter what his checkered past was. Clearly you can understand that. Keeping them in a negative way in the media just emboldens people. They entrench themselves evenmore.
Who knew boasting about sexual assault on tape was a policy people wanted? I guess it was, though. He got elected. His policies mattered more. It is the same with Boris. It's kind of like having a favorite football team.You do not stray to the other just because they lost."
I doubt Trump could spell policy. He had a red hat. That may be why he got elected. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"But does condemning + keeping them in the press in a negative way even nagatively affect them? Trump, for example, was taped bragging about sexual assualt. And AFTER that he still won the presidency. He had a policy people wanted. People voted he won. No matter what his checkered past was. Clearly you can understand that. Keeping them in a negative way in the media just emboldens people. They entrench themselves evenmore.
Who knew boasting about sexual assault on tape was a policy people wanted? I guess it was, though. He got elected. His policies mattered more. It is the same with Boris. It's kind of like having a favorite football team.You do not stray to the other just because they lost.
I doubt Trump could spell policy. He had a red hat. That may be why he got elected."
Well you remember labour policy from years ago. People just went with change. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"But does condemning + keeping them in the press in a negative way even nagatively affect them? Trump, for example, was taped bragging about sexual assualt. And AFTER that he still won the presidency. He had a policy people wanted. People voted he won. No matter what his checkered past was. Clearly you can understand that. Keeping them in a negative way in the media just emboldens people. They entrench themselves evenmore.
Who knew boasting about sexual assault on tape was a policy people wanted? I guess it was, though. He got elected. His policies mattered more. It is the same with Boris. It's kind of like having a favorite football team.You do not stray to the other just because they lost.
I doubt Trump could spell policy. He had a red hat. That may be why he got elected. Well you remember labour policy from years ago. People just went with change."
I can't speak for UK voters though. When households are suffering and when the last president was better in a economic sense. That holds alot of sway over everything else. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It feels worth pointing out the we-must-wait-on-all-the-facts line is an obvious tactic. It's been used time & time again to delay, trying to bury stories.
This tactic also allows those in power to slide in an investigator who they think will do/find whatever outcome is desired. A jolly good sort who knows how the game is played.
Worst case scenario: if an investigation actually ends up finding something damning, the report can be redacted or partially released. Or the PM can just ignore its recommendations anyway. (As Johnson did before.)"
Obvious tactic? Or perhaps people want face before casting judgement? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"But does condemning + keeping them in the press in a negative way even nagatively affect them? Trump, for example, was taped bragging about sexual assualt. And AFTER that he still won the presidency. He had a policy people wanted. People voted he won. No matter what his checkered past was. Clearly you can understand that. Keeping them in a negative way in the media just emboldens people. They entrench themselves evenmore.
Who knew boasting about sexual assault on tape was a policy people wanted? I guess it was, though. He got elected. His policies mattered more. It is the same with Boris. It's kind of like having a favorite football team.You do not stray to the other just because they lost.
I doubt Trump could spell policy. He had a red hat. That may be why he got elected. Well you remember labour policy from years ago. People just went with change. I can't speak for UK voters though. When households are suffering and when the last president was better in a economic sense. That holds alot of sway over everything else."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/record-numbers-worse-off-recipe-political-discontent-poll/story?id=96884607 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
What do you mean by "effective"?
Because neither ignoring or calling out seems to effect how people vote, what they think about their chosen political figures. It doesn't seem to make anyone in our government think twice about their behaviour.
It's my opinion, that the national press and broadcasters in this country completely fail in their duty to hold any politicians to account for their behaviour.
We used to have Pacman and others who would grill them.
Just look what happened when Truss when on local radio.
I challenge you, should you accept, to reply to a post where you don't use "Truss" or another Tory politician to bolster your leftist tendencies "
Brilliant, but the socialists remainers won’t like it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
What do you mean by "effective"?
Because neither ignoring or calling out seems to effect how people vote, what they think about their chosen political figures. It doesn't seem to make anyone in our government think twice about their behaviour.
It's my opinion, that the national press and broadcasters in this country completely fail in their duty to hold any politicians to account for their behaviour.
We used to have Pacman and others who would grill them.
Just look what happened when Truss when on local radio.
I challenge you, should you accept, to reply to a post where you don't use "Truss" or another Tory politician to bolster your leftist tendencies
Brilliant, but the socialists remainers won’t like it "
Who are these socialist remainers? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It feels worth pointing out the we-must-wait-on-all-the-facts line is an obvious tactic. It's been used time & time again to delay, trying to bury stories.
This tactic also allows those in power to slide in an investigator who they think will do/find whatever outcome is desired. A jolly good sort who knows how the game is played.
Worst case scenario: if an investigation actually ends up finding something damning, the report can be redacted or partially released. Or the PM can just ignore its recommendations anyway. (As Johnson did before.)
Obvious tactic? Or perhaps people want face before casting judgement?"
It's a v obvious tactic that keeps being used. I'm sure you know this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It feels worth pointing out the we-must-wait-on-all-the-facts line is an obvious tactic. It's been used time & time again to delay, trying to bury stories.
This tactic also allows those in power to slide in an investigator who they think will do/find whatever outcome is desired. A jolly good sort who knows how the game is played.
Worst case scenario: if an investigation actually ends up finding something damning, the report can be redacted or partially released. Or the PM can just ignore its recommendations anyway. (As Johnson did before.)
Obvious tactic? Or perhaps people want face before casting judgement?
It's a v obvious tactic that keeps being used. I'm sure you know this. "
You may seee it as a tactic. Others see it as gathering facts before casting judgement.
Just because you think it's a 'tactic', doesn't make you right.
I see you constantly saying things like this as your way of shutting down any opposing opinion. Does that make me right? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It feels worth pointing out the we-must-wait-on-all-the-facts line is an obvious tactic. It's been used time & time again to delay, trying to bury stories.
This tactic also allows those in power to slide in an investigator who they think will do/find whatever outcome is desired. A jolly good sort who knows how the game is played.
Worst case scenario: if an investigation actually ends up finding something damning, the report can be redacted or partially released. Or the PM can just ignore its recommendations anyway. (As Johnson did before.)
Obvious tactic? Or perhaps people want face before casting judgement?
It's a v obvious tactic that keeps being used. I'm sure you know this.
You may seee it as a tactic. Others see it as gathering facts before casting judgement.
Just because you think it's a 'tactic', doesn't make you right.
I see you constantly saying things like this as your way of shutting down any opposing opinion. Does that make me right?"
Not trying to shut you down. But we've seen the investigation thing pulled in politics too often. We've then seen the process dragged out while they kick the can down the road. We've seen them pick the people who will investigate it, while lying it's independent. We've even seen a PM at the end of all this ignore the recommendations & do fuck all anyway. It's a farce. And it keep happening.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It feels worth pointing out the we-must-wait-on-all-the-facts line is an obvious tactic. It's been used time & time again to delay, trying to bury stories.
This tactic also allows those in power to slide in an investigator who they think will do/find whatever outcome is desired. A jolly good sort who knows how the game is played.
Worst case scenario: if an investigation actually ends up finding something damning, the report can be redacted or partially released. Or the PM can just ignore its recommendations anyway. (As Johnson did before.)
Obvious tactic? Or perhaps people want face before casting judgement?
It's a v obvious tactic that keeps being used. I'm sure you know this.
You may seee it as a tactic. Others see it as gathering facts before casting judgement.
Just because you think it's a 'tactic', doesn't make you right.
I see you constantly saying things like this as your way of shutting down any opposing opinion. Does that make me right?"
Some people want law and order until it doesn't suit their agenda. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It feels worth pointing out the we-must-wait-on-all-the-facts line is an obvious tactic. It's been used time & time again to delay, trying to bury stories.
This tactic also allows those in power to slide in an investigator who they think will do/find whatever outcome is desired. A jolly good sort who knows how the game is played.
Worst case scenario: if an investigation actually ends up finding something damning, the report can be redacted or partially released. Or the PM can just ignore its recommendations anyway. (As Johnson did before.)
Obvious tactic? Or perhaps people want face before casting judgement?
It's a v obvious tactic that keeps being used. I'm sure you know this.
You may seee it as a tactic. Others see it as gathering facts before casting judgement.
Just because you think it's a 'tactic', doesn't make you right.
I see you constantly saying things like this as your way of shutting down any opposing opinion. Does that make me right? Some people want law and order until it doesn't suit their agenda."
These investigations aren't about finding facts & punishing for wrongdoing though. They're really not.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It feels worth pointing out the we-must-wait-on-all-the-facts line is an obvious tactic. It's been used time & time again to delay, trying to bury stories.
This tactic also allows those in power to slide in an investigator who they think will do/find whatever outcome is desired. A jolly good sort who knows how the game is played.
Worst case scenario: if an investigation actually ends up finding something damning, the report can be redacted or partially released. Or the PM can just ignore its recommendations anyway. (As Johnson did before.)
Obvious tactic? Or perhaps people want face before casting judgement?
It's a v obvious tactic that keeps being used. I'm sure you know this.
You may seee it as a tactic. Others see it as gathering facts before casting judgement.
Just because you think it's a 'tactic', doesn't make you right.
I see you constantly saying things like this as your way of shutting down any opposing opinion. Does that make me right? Some people want law and order until it doesn't suit their agenda."
There is no due process anymore it's straight up public opinion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It feels worth pointing out the we-must-wait-on-all-the-facts line is an obvious tactic. It's been used time & time again to delay, trying to bury stories.
This tactic also allows those in power to slide in an investigator who they think will do/find whatever outcome is desired. A jolly good sort who knows how the game is played.
Worst case scenario: if an investigation actually ends up finding something damning, the report can be redacted or partially released. Or the PM can just ignore its recommendations anyway. (As Johnson did before.)
Obvious tactic? Or perhaps people want face before casting judgement?
It's a v obvious tactic that keeps being used. I'm sure you know this.
You may seee it as a tactic. Others see it as gathering facts before casting judgement.
Just because you think it's a 'tactic', doesn't make you right.
I see you constantly saying things like this as your way of shutting down any opposing opinion. Does that make me right? Some people want law and order until it doesn't suit their agenda. There is no due process anymore it's straight up public opinion."
When we're ruled by liars with no morals whatsoever, due process is impossible.
That was the biggest lesson taught to this country by Johnson. The rot really kicked into overdrive with him.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It feels worth pointing out the we-must-wait-on-all-the-facts line is an obvious tactic. It's been used time & time again to delay, trying to bury stories.
This tactic also allows those in power to slide in an investigator who they think will do/find whatever outcome is desired. A jolly good sort who knows how the game is played.
Worst case scenario: if an investigation actually ends up finding something damning, the report can be redacted or partially released. Or the PM can just ignore its recommendations anyway. (As Johnson did before.)
Obvious tactic? Or perhaps people want face before casting judgement?
It's a v obvious tactic that keeps being used. I'm sure you know this.
You may seee it as a tactic. Others see it as gathering facts before casting judgement.
Just because you think it's a 'tactic', doesn't make you right.
I see you constantly saying things like this as your way of shutting down any opposing opinion. Does that make me right?
Not trying to shut you down. But we've seen the investigation thing pulled in politics too often. We've then seen the process dragged out while they kick the can down the road. We've seen them pick the people who will investigate it, while lying it's independent. We've even seen a PM at the end of all this ignore the recommendations & do fuck all anyway. It's a farce. And it keep happening.
"
We have seen a of that, however, does that mean we shouldn't have investigations?
We should just claim guilty and hang them all? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
don't like parliament holding you to account? Fuck em. Prorogue the bastards? How? Sod it. Lie to the queen?
don't like an outcome of an investigation? Bugger that. Ignore it.
Ethics advisors? What are they? To hell with them.
Laws? Pah. Let's look into how we can break them, in a limited & specific way of course.
Support a sex pest then lie about it? Why not?
etc... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It feels worth pointing out the we-must-wait-on-all-the-facts line is an obvious tactic. It's been used time & time again to delay, trying to bury stories.
This tactic also allows those in power to slide in an investigator who they think will do/find whatever outcome is desired. A jolly good sort who knows how the game is played.
Worst case scenario: if an investigation actually ends up finding something damning, the report can be redacted or partially released. Or the PM can just ignore its recommendations anyway. (As Johnson did before.)
Obvious tactic? Or perhaps people want face before casting judgement?
It's a v obvious tactic that keeps being used. I'm sure you know this.
You may seee it as a tactic. Others see it as gathering facts before casting judgement.
Just because you think it's a 'tactic', doesn't make you right.
I see you constantly saying things like this as your way of shutting down any opposing opinion. Does that make me right?
Not trying to shut you down. But we've seen the investigation thing pulled in politics too often. We've then seen the process dragged out while they kick the can down the road. We've seen them pick the people who will investigate it, while lying it's independent. We've even seen a PM at the end of all this ignore the recommendations & do fuck all anyway. It's a farce. And it keep happening.
We have seen a of that, however, does that mean we shouldn't have investigations?
We should just claim guilty and hang them all?"
We should have meaningful investigations with teeth. Currenly that is not the case at all.
Currently, the politicians pick who will investigate them. They pick people who know the drill. There's always the honours system lurking in the wings wink wink. The politicians can then decide how/when/if to release any report. And they can decide what punishment, if any, they want. They can even ignore any result completely. It's all worthless as an investigation process. (V good for delaying/diluting bad news though.) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It feels worth pointing out the we-must-wait-on-all-the-facts line is an obvious tactic. It's been used time & time again to delay, trying to bury stories.
This tactic also allows those in power to slide in an investigator who they think will do/find whatever outcome is desired. A jolly good sort who knows how the game is played.
Worst case scenario: if an investigation actually ends up finding something damning, the report can be redacted or partially released. Or the PM can just ignore its recommendations anyway. (As Johnson did before.)
Obvious tactic? Or perhaps people want face before casting judgement?
It's a v obvious tactic that keeps being used. I'm sure you know this.
You may seee it as a tactic. Others see it as gathering facts before casting judgement.
Just because you think it's a 'tactic', doesn't make you right.
I see you constantly saying things like this as your way of shutting down any opposing opinion. Does that make me right? Some people want law and order until it doesn't suit their agenda. There is no due process anymore it's straight up public opinion.
When we're ruled by liars with no morals whatsoever, due process is impossible.
That was the biggest lesson taught to this country by Johnson. The rot really kicked into overdrive with him.
"
Odd I remember a certain Kyle Rittenhouse. You wanted his head on a pike. Just like others. Not guilty. Due process accordingly. Politicians don't get the same benefits from either side ? Might be a lengthy process but they get the same opportunity. You want all torries heads on a pike. Even though the people voted them in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Say you were seen speeding by the cops, caught, fined. Bang to rights. You pay the fine. done.
Now imagine if this was done under the sort of investigations we get for politicians.
You know you were speeding, but you say an investiation is needed to establish the facts. You pick your neigbour to investigate because you know he's a good chap.
Your neigbour spends a few months talking to everybody involved. He finally gives you a report. You read the report. You don't like some bits so you redact them or get them rewritten with some strategic words in the right ears. You decide to release the report on a big news day so nobody really notices the news of your wrongdoing.
Finally the report is released. It says nothing much of anything. Mistakes were made etc. Nobody really to blame.
Then, shock horror, new revelations come to light. So you replay the process. Another report. More kicking the can along the road. But this time some1 didn't get the memo on how to write a whitewash - they musn't have gone to Oxford. You don't like this report or it's recommendation at all.
So you shrug & ignore the report. The person who wrote the report resigns in protest. Maybe your ethics advisor resigns too. But you don't care. Why would you? You've got what you want.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It feels worth pointing out the we-must-wait-on-all-the-facts line is an obvious tactic. It's been used time & time again to delay, trying to bury stories.
This tactic also allows those in power to slide in an investigator who they think will do/find whatever outcome is desired. A jolly good sort who knows how the game is played.
Worst case scenario: if an investigation actually ends up finding something damning, the report can be redacted or partially released. Or the PM can just ignore its recommendations anyway. (As Johnson did before.)
Obvious tactic? Or perhaps people want face before casting judgement?
It's a v obvious tactic that keeps being used. I'm sure you know this.
You may seee it as a tactic. Others see it as gathering facts before casting judgement.
Just because you think it's a 'tactic', doesn't make you right.
I see you constantly saying things like this as your way of shutting down any opposing opinion. Does that make me right? Some people want law and order until it doesn't suit their agenda. There is no due process anymore it's straight up public opinion.
When we're ruled by liars with no morals whatsoever, due process is impossible.
That was the biggest lesson taught to this country by Johnson. The rot really kicked into overdrive with him.
Odd I remember a certain Kyle Rittenhouse. You wanted his head on a pike. Just like others. Not guilty. Due process accordingly. Politicians don't get the same benefits from either side ? Might be a lengthy process but they get the same opportunity. You want all torries heads on a pike. Even though the people voted them in."
No offence, but you're making things up about me.
And I do not want all Tories heads on spikes - or any1's head for that matter. It'd be spiffing, though, if the law seemed to apply to them as much as it does to the public. And it's hardly my fault they keep lying & screwing the country over. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
And I thought our politics were off the deep end. Just for the record.. I do not have a total understanding of labor. I get the similarities. What changes can labor make that is not a determent to the whole society. The usual ones just crack on everyday. Nothing positive about labor just negativity about torries. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It feels worth pointing out the we-must-wait-on-all-the-facts line is an obvious tactic. It's been used time & time again to delay, trying to bury stories.
This tactic also allows those in power to slide in an investigator who they think will do/find whatever outcome is desired. A jolly good sort who knows how the game is played.
Worst case scenario: if an investigation actually ends up finding something damning, the report can be redacted or partially released. Or the PM can just ignore its recommendations anyway. (As Johnson did before.)
Obvious tactic? Or perhaps people want face before casting judgement?
It's a v obvious tactic that keeps being used. I'm sure you know this.
You may seee it as a tactic. Others see it as gathering facts before casting judgement.
Just because you think it's a 'tactic', doesn't make you right.
I see you constantly saying things like this as your way of shutting down any opposing opinion. Does that make me right? Some people want law and order until it doesn't suit their agenda. There is no due process anymore it's straight up public opinion.
When we're ruled by liars with no morals whatsoever, due process is impossible.
That was the biggest lesson taught to this country by Johnson. The rot really kicked into overdrive with him.
Odd I remember a certain Kyle Rittenhouse. You wanted his head on a pike. Just like others. Not guilty. Due process accordingly. Politicians don't get the same benefits from either side ? Might be a lengthy process but they get the same opportunity. You want all torries heads on a pike. Even though the people voted them in.
No offence, but you're making things up about me.
And I do not want all Tories heads on spikes - or any1's head for that matter. It'd be spiffing, though, if the law seemed to apply to them as much as it does to the public. And it's hardly my fault they keep lying & screwing the country over."
Yet you post nothing positive... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"And I thought our politics were off the deep end. Just for the record.. I do not have a total understanding of labor. I get the similarities. What changes can labor make that is not a determent to the whole society. The usual ones just crack on everyday. Nothing positive about labor just negativity about torries. "
This thread isn't about Labour or the Tories. It's about whether it's better to ignore or condemn lying/bad behaviour. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It feels worth pointing out the we-must-wait-on-all-the-facts line is an obvious tactic. It's been used time & time again to delay, trying to bury stories.
This tactic also allows those in power to slide in an investigator who they think will do/find whatever outcome is desired. A jolly good sort who knows how the game is played.
Worst case scenario: if an investigation actually ends up finding something damning, the report can be redacted or partially released. Or the PM can just ignore its recommendations anyway. (As Johnson did before.)
Obvious tactic? Or perhaps people want face before casting judgement?
It's a v obvious tactic that keeps being used. I'm sure you know this.
You may seee it as a tactic. Others see it as gathering facts before casting judgement.
Just because you think it's a 'tactic', doesn't make you right.
I see you constantly saying things like this as your way of shutting down any opposing opinion. Does that make me right? Some people want law and order until it doesn't suit their agenda. There is no due process anymore it's straight up public opinion.
When we're ruled by liars with no morals whatsoever, due process is impossible.
That was the biggest lesson taught to this country by Johnson. The rot really kicked into overdrive with him.
Odd I remember a certain Kyle Rittenhouse. You wanted his head on a pike. Just like others. Not guilty. Due process accordingly. Politicians don't get the same benefits from either side ? Might be a lengthy process but they get the same opportunity. You want all torries heads on a pike. Even though the people voted them in.
No offence, but you're making things up about me.
And I do not want all Tories heads on spikes - or any1's head for that matter. It'd be spiffing, though, if the law seemed to apply to them as much as it does to the public. And it's hardly my fault they keep lying & screwing the country over. Yet you post nothing positive... "
Again, how is it my fault they keep lying & screwing the country?
OK Mr Sunak has a nice smile. See, there's a positive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And I thought our politics were off the deep end. Just for the record.. I do not have a total understanding of labor. I get the similarities. What changes can labor make that is not a determent to the whole society. The usual ones just crack on everyday. Nothing positive about labor just negativity about torries.
This thread isn't about Labour or the Tories. It's about whether it's better to ignore or condemn lying/bad behaviour."
Due process it's simple according to laws. Here Biden condemned Trump for documents. Yet years later after he left as a VP same thing. No different just because he allowed a search and one didn't. It's all optics is it not ?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"And I thought our politics were off the deep end. Just for the record.. I do not have a total understanding of labor. I get the similarities. What changes can labor make that is not a determent to the whole society. The usual ones just crack on everyday. Nothing positive about labor just negativity about torries.
This thread isn't about Labour or the Tories. It's about whether it's better to ignore or condemn lying/bad behaviour. Due process it's simple according to laws. Here Biden condemned Trump for documents. Yet years later after he left as a VP same thing. No different just because he allowed a search and one didn't. It's all optics is it not ?
"
I'll try again. Please reread the thread title x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And I thought our politics were off the deep end. Just for the record.. I do not have a total understanding of labor. I get the similarities. What changes can labor make that is not a determent to the whole society. The usual ones just crack on everyday. Nothing positive about labor just negativity about torries.
This thread isn't about Labour or the Tories. It's about whether it's better to ignore or condemn lying/bad behaviour. Due process it's simple according to laws. Here Biden condemned Trump for documents. Yet years later after he left as a VP same thing. No different just because he allowed a search and one didn't. It's all optics is it not ?
"
Same goes with pence. Who is right here Biden ? I let the courts decide according to our laws. All of them . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
What do you mean by "effective"?
Because neither ignoring or calling out seems to effect how people vote, what they think about their chosen political figures. It doesn't seem to make anyone in our government think twice about their behaviour.
It's my opinion, that the national press and broadcasters in this country completely fail in their duty to hold any politicians to account for their behaviour.
We used to have Pacman and others who would grill them.
Just look what happened when Truss when on local radio.
I challenge you, should you accept, to reply to a post where you don't use "Truss" or another Tory politician to bolster your leftist tendencies
Brilliant, but the socialists remainers won’t like it
Who are these socialist remainers?"
People like yourself |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Is it better to condemn lies/bad behaviour or ignore them? And why? They are politicians of course they lie all of them. Fact."
If your politicians do not lie in a public arena it would be hilarious if they told the truth on national secrets don't ya think? I wouldn't want that but you would Optics come into play wouldn't you think?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Is it better to condemn lies/bad behaviour or ignore them? And why? They are politicians of course they lie all of them. Fact."
Everyone lies. does that mean we shouldn't call out damaging lies?
For instance, should we ignore Trump's oft repeated lie that he won the election when he demonstrably lost it? That lie led to a lot of public anger, culminating in the storming of the Capitol. Or should we ignore that lie, even now? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
What do you mean by "effective"?
Because neither ignoring or calling out seems to effect how people vote, what they think about their chosen political figures. It doesn't seem to make anyone in our government think twice about their behaviour.
It's my opinion, that the national press and broadcasters in this country completely fail in their duty to hold any politicians to account for their behaviour.
We used to have Pacman and others who would grill them.
Just look what happened when Truss when on local radio.
I challenge you, should you accept, to reply to a post where you don't use "Truss" or another Tory politician to bolster your leftist tendencies
Brilliant, but the socialists remainers won’t like it
Who are these socialist remainers?
People like yourself "
How am I a socialist? And how am I a remainer? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Is it better to condemn lies/bad behaviour or ignore them? And why? They are politicians of course they lie all of them. Fact.
Everyone lies. does that mean we shouldn't call out damaging lies?
For instance, should we ignore Trump's oft repeated lie that he won the election when he demonstrably lost it? That lie led to a lot of public anger, culminating in the storming of the Capitol. Or should we ignore that lie, even now?"
lol has it been proven yet ok n a court of law or just public opinion. Literally the "Law" breakers are getting their justice are they not ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Is it better to condemn lies/bad behaviour or ignore them? And why? They are politicians of course they lie all of them. Fact.
Everyone lies. does that mean we shouldn't call out damaging lies?
For instance, should we ignore Trump's oft repeated lie that he won the election when he demonstrably lost it? That lie led to a lot of public anger, culminating in the storming of the Capitol. Or should we ignore that lie, even now? lol has it been proven yet ok n a court of law or just public opinion. Literally the "Law" breakers are getting their justice are they not ? "
You keep veering off. I asked if we should ignore Trump's lie that he won the election. He did not win that election. You must know this.
So should we ignore Trump's lie that he repeated over and over again? Or should we condemn him for the big lie? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Is it better to condemn lies/bad behaviour or ignore them? And why? They are politicians of course they lie all of them. Fact.
Everyone lies. does that mean we shouldn't call out damaging lies?
For instance, should we ignore Trump's oft repeated lie that he won the election when he demonstrably lost it? That lie led to a lot of public anger, culminating in the storming of the Capitol. Or should we ignore that lie, even now? lol has it been proven yet ok n a court of law or just public opinion. Literally the "Law" breakers are getting their justice are they not ?
You keep veering off. I asked if we should ignore Trump's lie that he won the election. He did not win that election. You must know this.
So should we ignore Trump's lie that he repeated over and over again? Or should we condemn him for the big lie?"
I posted a link if you scroll up. The public might think otherwise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Is it better to condemn lies/bad behaviour or ignore them? And why? They are politicians of course they lie all of them. Fact.
Everyone lies. does that mean we shouldn't call out damaging lies?
For instance, should we ignore Trump's oft repeated lie that he won the election when he demonstrably lost it? That lie led to a lot of public anger, culminating in the storming of the Capitol. Or should we ignore that lie, even now? lol has it been proven yet ok n a court of law or just public opinion. Literally the "Law" breakers are getting their justice are they not ?
You keep veering off. I asked if we should ignore Trump's lie that he won the election. He did not win that election. You must know this.
So should we ignore Trump's lie that he repeated over and over again? Or should we condemn him for the big lie? I posted a link if you scroll up. The public might think otherwise."
I'm asking you. Trump lost that election. He then lied about it over & over again. Should he be condemned for the big lie or not? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Is it better to condemn lies/bad behaviour or ignore them? And why? They are politicians of course they lie all of them. Fact.
Everyone lies. does that mean we shouldn't call out damaging lies?
For instance, should we ignore Trump's oft repeated lie that he won the election when he demonstrably lost it? That lie led to a lot of public anger, culminating in the storming of the Capitol. Or should we ignore that lie, even now? lol has it been proven yet ok n a court of law or just public opinion. Literally the "Law" breakers are getting their justice are they not ?
You keep veering off. I asked if we should ignore Trump's lie that he won the election. He did not win that election. You must know this.
So should we ignore Trump's lie that he repeated over and over again? Or should we condemn him for the big lie? I posted a link if you scroll up. The public might think otherwise."
Clearly that link people more concerned with something more tangible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Is it better to condemn lies/bad behaviour or ignore them? And why? They are politicians of course they lie all of them. Fact.
Everyone lies. does that mean we shouldn't call out damaging lies?
For instance, should we ignore Trump's oft repeated lie that he won the election when he demonstrably lost it? That lie led to a lot of public anger, culminating in the storming of the Capitol. Or should we ignore that lie, even now? lol has it been proven yet ok n a court of law or just public opinion. Literally the "Law" breakers are getting their justice are they not ?
You keep veering off. I asked if we should ignore Trump's lie that he won the election. He did not win that election. You must know this.
So should we ignore Trump's lie that he repeated over and over again? Or should we condemn him for the big lie? I posted a link if you scroll up. The public might think otherwise. Clearly that link people more concerned with something more tangible."
I'm not asking other people. I'm asking you. Why can't you answer?
Trump lost the election. He lied about it. The big lie. He keeps lying about it. Should he be condemned for the big lie? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Is it better to condemn lies/bad behaviour or ignore them? And why? They are politicians of course they lie all of them. Fact.
Everyone lies. does that mean we shouldn't call out damaging lies?
For instance, should we ignore Trump's oft repeated lie that he won the election when he demonstrably lost it? That lie led to a lot of public anger, culminating in the storming of the Capitol. Or should we ignore that lie, even now? lol has it been proven yet ok n a court of law or just public opinion. Literally the "Law" breakers are getting their justice are they not ?
You keep veering off. I asked if we should ignore Trump's lie that he won the election. He did not win that election. You must know this.
So should we ignore Trump's lie that he repeated over and over again? Or should we condemn him for the big lie? I posted a link if you scroll up. The public might think otherwise.
I'm asking you. Trump lost that election. He then lied about it over & over again. Should he be condemned for the big lie or not?"
IMO he lost in public opinion is another story now isn't it? Some of you constantly whine about Brexit people voted yet refuse the outcome.Odd |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Is it better to condemn lies/bad behaviour or ignore them? And why? They are politicians of course they lie all of them. Fact.
Everyone lies. does that mean we shouldn't call out damaging lies?
For instance, should we ignore Trump's oft repeated lie that he won the election when he demonstrably lost it? That lie led to a lot of public anger, culminating in the storming of the Capitol. Or should we ignore that lie, even now? lol has it been proven yet ok n a court of law or just public opinion. Literally the "Law" breakers are getting their justice are they not ?
You keep veering off. I asked if we should ignore Trump's lie that he won the election. He did not win that election. You must know this.
So should we ignore Trump's lie that he repeated over and over again? Or should we condemn him for the big lie? I posted a link if you scroll up. The public might think otherwise.
I'm asking you. Trump lost that election. He then lied about it over & over again. Should he be condemned for the big lie or not? IMO he lost in public opinion is another story now isn't it? Some of you constantly whine about Brexit people voted yet refuse the outcome.Odd"
You agree Trump lost. OK we're halfway there. So Trump lied he won. So should he be condemned for that lie?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Trump lost Biden president I accepted. How long has Brexit been a issue
You want me to accept the majority but you don't."
Still not answering the full question, are you? Should Trump be condemned for lying that he won the election? It's really simple to answer this.
On Brexit: I'm not denying Remain lost. I'm also not denying Brexit happened. I don't think any1 is denying those things. So it's a rather different situation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Is it better to condemn lies/bad behaviour or ignore them? And why? They are politicians of course they lie all of them. Fact.
Everyone lies. does that mean we shouldn't call out damaging lies?
For instance, should we ignore Trump's oft repeated lie that he won the election when he demonstrably lost it? That lie led to a lot of public anger, culminating in the storming of the Capitol. Or should we ignore that lie, even now? lol has it been proven yet ok n a court of law or just public opinion. Literally the "Law" breakers are getting their justice are they not ?
You keep veering off. I asked if we should ignore Trump's lie that he won the election. He did not win that election. You must know this.
So should we ignore Trump's lie that he repeated over and over again? Or should we condemn him for the big lie? I posted a link if you scroll up. The public might think otherwise.
I'm asking you. Trump lost that election. He then lied about it over & over again. Should he be condemned for the big lie or not? IMO he lost in public opinion is another story now isn't it? Some of you constantly whine about Brexit people voted yet refuse the outcome.Odd
You agree Trump lost. OK we're halfway there. So Trump lied he won. So should he be condemned for that lie?
"
No not until the law provides a definitive answer. My vote is not 80 million now is it? I would rather get that answer then have a civil war don't ya think ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Trump lost the election. Trump lied about this over & over again. None of this is in doubt. You really don't like admitting to reality, do you?
This is clealy pointless, as usual.
Back on topic for any1 else.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
What do you mean by "effective"?
Because neither ignoring or calling out seems to effect how people vote, what they think about their chosen political figures. It doesn't seem to make anyone in our government think twice about their behaviour.
It's my opinion, that the national press and broadcasters in this country completely fail in their duty to hold any politicians to account for their behaviour.
We used to have Pacman and others who would grill them.
Just look what happened when Truss when on local radio.
I challenge you, should you accept, to reply to a post where you don't use "Truss" or another Tory politician to bolster your leftist tendencies
Brilliant, but the socialists remainers won’t like it
Who are these socialist remainers?"
He's claiming that only socialists understand brexit. It's fucking weird. Even by Fab forum standards. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Trump lost the election. Trump lied about this over & over again. None of this is in doubt. You really don't like admitting to reality, do you?
This is clealy pointless, as usual.
Back on topic for any1 else.
"
Can't corner me Biden won. Lol love the deflect you can't answer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Trump lost the election. Trump lied about this over & over again. None of this is in doubt. You really don't like admitting to reality, do you?
This is clealy pointless, as usual.
Back on topic for any1 else.
Can't corner me Biden won. Lol love the deflect you can't answer. "
Blu, it doesn't matter what I say to you. You either can't or won't listen. It doesn't matter what I answer. It doesn't matter what I ask. It always goes the same way. That's why it always comes down to:
Be well x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Trump lost the election. Trump lied about this over & over again. None of this is in doubt. You really don't like admitting to reality, do you?
This is clealy pointless, as usual.
Back on topic for any1 else.
Can't corner me Biden won. Lol love the deflect you can't answer. "
I accepted the people's vote. Others didn't. Same as Brexit democracy prevailed am I wrong? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Trump lost the election. Trump lied about this over & over again. None of this is in doubt. You really don't like admitting to reality, do you?
This is clealy pointless, as usual.
Back on topic for any1 else.
Can't corner me Biden won. Lol love the deflect you can't answer.
Blu, it doesn't matter what I say to you. You either can't or won't listen. It doesn't matter what I answer. It doesn't matter what I ask. It always goes the same way. That's why it always comes down to:
Be well x"
Was Brexit a Democratic vote yes or no? It's politics is it not? Politicians lie to their benefit. Sometimes within the scope of laws. Let me rephrase so you understand. Was Brexit a majority vote accordingly? I accept Biden I said that multiple times. Seems you self centered like others and can't accept the outcome. But whine about others choices on what is democracy. Odd |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Trump lost the election. Trump lied about this over & over again. None of this is in doubt. You really don't like admitting to reality, do you?
This is clealy pointless, as usual.
Back on topic for any1 else.
Can't corner me Biden won. Lol love the deflect you can't answer.
Blu, it doesn't matter what I say to you. You either can't or won't listen. It doesn't matter what I answer. It doesn't matter what I ask. It always goes the same way. That's why it always comes down to:
Be well x Was Brexit a Democratic vote yes or no? It's politics is it not? Politicians lie to their benefit. Sometimes within the scope of laws. Let me rephrase so you understand. Was Brexit a majority vote accordingly? I accept Biden I said that multiple times. Seems you self centered like others and can't accept the outcome. But whine about others choices on what is democracy. Odd"
OK 1 final time. Let's see if you can manage a straight answer. Trump lost the election. Trump lied that he won the election. Should he be condemned for the big lie? Yes or no? It's a really simple question.
I'll answer your questions to show how easy it is to answer questions.
Was Brexit a majority vote? Yes.
Was Brexit a democratic vote? Yes.
See how easy answering direct question can be? Now let's see if you finally answer what I v clearly asked... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
No not until it's proven according to our constitution in a court of law. You know the one you fail to comprehend. I said that repeatedly. I even gave you examples. Yet you can't compute. Like I said it's basically all about you.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"No not until it's proven according to our constitution in a court of law. You know the one you fail to comprehend. I said that repeatedly. I even gave you examples. Yet you can't compute. Like I said it's basically all about you.
"
It's beyond any reasonable doubt that Trump lost. State and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented by Trump and his allies challenging the election or its outcome. He lost. It's also undeniable Trump lied that he won over & over again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No not until it's proven according to our constitution in a court of law. You know the one you fail to comprehend. I said that repeatedly. I even gave you examples. Yet you can't compute. Like I said it's basically all about you.
It's beyond any reasonable doubt that Trump lost. State and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented by Trump and his allies challenging the election or its outcome. He lost. It's also undeniable Trump lied that he won over & over again."
Yet .. the polls are trending were again? Like I said people here want absolute proof. Yet the latest polls Trump beats Biden. Am I wrong ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"No not until it's proven according to our constitution in a court of law. You know the one you fail to comprehend. I said that repeatedly. I even gave you examples. Yet you can't compute. Like I said it's basically all about you.
It's beyond any reasonable doubt that Trump lost. State and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented by Trump and his allies challenging the election or its outcome. He lost. It's also undeniable Trump lied that he won over & over again. Yet .. the polls are trending were again? Like I said people here want absolute proof. Yet the latest polls Trump beats Biden. Am I wrong ? "
You have absolute proof. You just won't accept it.
Please give it a rest. Be well x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No not until it's proven according to our constitution in a court of law. You know the one you fail to comprehend. I said that repeatedly. I even gave you examples. Yet you can't compute. Like I said it's basically all about you.
It's beyond any reasonable doubt that Trump lost. State and federal judges dismissed more than 50 lawsuits presented by Trump and his allies challenging the election or its outcome. He lost. It's also undeniable Trump lied that he won over & over again. Yet .. the polls are trending were again? Like I said people here want absolute proof. Yet the latest polls Trump beats Biden. Am I wrong ?
You have absolute proof. You just won't accept it.
Please give it a rest. Be well x"
Your public opinion does. You too be well |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've been thinking about this for a while, when it comes to politics. Especially figures like Johnson/Trump with their relentless lying etc. Awful behaviour/lies should be called out. And yet, there is more media than ever before. Frequently mentioning a political figure inevitably gives them more of a profile.
On the flip side, ignoring the bad behaviour/lies of such figures allows them to keep pushing those lies.
So is it more effective to ignore or condemn such figures?
"
It's very hard to ignore them, with cost of living, interest rates, strikes etc.
But I condemn them for doing nothing about this crisis, spreading fear, hate and division through this country, to line their pockets.
The tories right now are or were 4 factions The P.M, Chancellor, Home Sec' and Sectary of State.
Chancellor gone, Sectary of State under threat, not looking good, they shouldn't be in power, but they stay for themselves, that's worth condemning. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
