(Soon to be) Former President Donald Trump

[LK1]

The rise of the far right in the USA is very scary to me. It's insane how many extreme lies these republican politicians can say and how easy their followers just swallow up or dont care enough to check. No questions asked, lets own the libs etc.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm surprised Clinton had anything left to give after the humiliation of actually losing to Trump. I hadn't realised she was so unpopular with so many Americans and I recall expecting her to win comfortably. She must have felt like going into hiding.

She won the popular vote, if you recall.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The rise of the far right in the USA is very scary to me. It's insane how many extreme lies these republican politicians can say and how easy their followers just swallow up or dont care enough to check. No questions asked, lets own the libs etc.

Pretty good description of the UK Government, I'd say.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Pretty good description of the UK Government, I'd say.

All the right wing groups in the world are singing generally from Bannons playbook, as well as taking Russian dosh. Uk is no exception.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

Democrats are keeping children in their basements to drink their blood Michigan Republican candidate recorded saying Democrats drink the blood of children and ‘sell baby body parts’ (msn.com)

what in gods name is happening with right wingers around the world, they are just plain mentally deranged lying freaks...... and they fool a helluva lot of right wing voters, trucking weirdos the lot of them

[greenginger]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is a somewhat false equivalence, isn't it?

Not really.

The point is the unequivocal acceptance of an election once all recounts are made.

Clinton banging on about a stolen election for years just gave excuses to the headbangers on the other side to dispute their loss.

[Keith_M]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

...

Clinton banging on about a stolen election for years just gave excuses to the headbangers on the other side to dispute their loss.

Could you give some examples of her disputing the election result over the years?

I have to admit to not being entirely up to date with US Politics but I don't remember reading such consistent and ongoing denials of the result.

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not really. The point is the unequivocal acceptance of an election once all recounts are made.

Clinton banging on about a stolen election for years just gave excuses to the headbangers on the other side to dispute their loss.

Ok, but to me this is not quite the point I was making. For the Brexit referendum, I accept that more people voted Leave than Remain. What I do not accept is that it was a fair referendum because one side told outright lies without any sanction, and that same side used illegal activities (including illegal funding from Russia) to unfairly sway public opinion.

So no, I don't accept the Brexit referendum result as valid and I never will.

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not really.

The point is the unequivocal acceptance of an election once all recounts are made.

Clinton banging on about a stolen election for years just gave excuses to the headbangers on the other side to dispute their loss.

It's all about how you define "acceptance".

[greenginger]

Y

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Could you give some examples of her disputing the election result over the years?

I have to admit to not being entirely up to date with US Politics but I don't remember reading such consistent and ongoing denials of the result.

There’s sure to be a few in here.

https://gop.com/research/over-150-ex...n-results-rsr/

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Y

There’s sure to be a few in here.

https://gop.com/research/over-150-ex...n-results-rsr/

She was right.

[Crunchie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There are plenty in Scotland who are willing to sacrifice democracy to pursue their political goals as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Never a truer word have you spoken, and they’re still in power.

[McD]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm surprised Clinton had anything left to give after the humiliation of actually losing to Trump. I hadn't realised she was so unpopular with so many Americans and I recall expecting her to win comfortably. She must have felt like going into hiding.

she did tally more votes by a not insignificant number iirc, but the way their system works, trump won

[greenginger]

T

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

she did tally more votes by a not insignificant number iirc, but the way their system works, trump won

Our system can work that way too sometimes.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Marjorie Taylor Greene gets rally to boo Paul Pelosi, says he should have had a gun and shot his attacker (yahoo.com)


how dare Pelosi get his head in the way of a swinging hammer



During her speech, Greene also commented on the conflict in Ukraine and promised that Republicans will not send money to the country if they retake Congress in the mid-term elections.
"Under Republicans, not another penny will go to Ukraine," Greene told rally-goers. "Our country comes first."


what a repugnant horror she truly is, Trump has started something that i think there's no way back from, big orange pumpkin

[tamig]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Y

There’s sure to be a few in here.

https://gop.com/research/over-150-ex...n-results-rsr/

I think your source casts down on the integrity of this article.

[greenginger]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think your source casts down on the integrity of this article.

The article consists of clips from tv interviews and quotes directly taken from newspapers like the Washington Post.

Because they were gathered together by the Republican Party committee doesn’t make them untrue.

[Just Alf]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The article consists of clips from tv interviews and quotes directly taken from newspapers like the Washington Post.

Because they were gathered together by the Republican Party committee doesn’t make them untrue.

Clips?


I'm too tired after tonight but after all the discussions on here about tories/corbyn/snp/labour/brexit etc etc we surely recognise by now that "clips" can be used to skew perspectives very easily?

I'm sure I've said previously that I worked on the technical side of tv reporting and was often amazed at how easily it was for producers and reporters to portray a completely different meaning to what was intended by the person being quoted by selective quotes..... if I hadn't been there in the flesh I'd have had a completely different viewpoint on what was said.

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Because they were gathered together by the Republican Party committee doesn’t make them untrue.

Extremely, dangerously naive.

[McD]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

T

Our system can work that way too sometimes.

true, but not as easily. Also not really the point of the post I was replying to

[greenginger]

N

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Extremely, dangerously naive.

So a quote taken directly from from an interview with a newspaper like the Washington Post or the words spoken by a person in a TV discussion have to be considered as fake if they are highlighted by a particular side in politics.

[tamig]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

N

So a quote taken directly from from an interview with a newspaper like the Washington Post or the words spoken by a person in a TV discussion have to be considered as fake if they are highlighted by a particular side in politics.

See Just Alf’s post above gg. Just another form of selective editing. Easy enough with print media too.

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

See Just Alf’s post above gg. Just another form of selective editing. Easy enough with print media too.

The quotes are pretty cut and dry if you read them, although some are justified. Gore was robbed unlike trump

[greenginger]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

See Just Alf’s post above gg. Just another form of selective editing. Easy enough with print media too.

I posted the Republican article in response to post 4657 by Keith_M who said he was unaware of Clinton questioning the 2016 election result.

One example , quote from Clinton in interview with the Washington Post , “ Trump is an illegitimate president and he stole the 2016 election “.

Please explain the selective editing. Are you trying to claim Clinton has never questioned the 2016 election?

[Hibbyradge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I posted the Republican article in response to post 4657 by Keith_M who said he was unaware of Clinton questioning the 2016 election result.

One example , quote from Clinton in interview with the Washington Post , “ Trump is an illegitimate president and he stole the 2016 election “.

Please explain the selective editing. Are you trying to claim Clinton has never questioned the 2016 election?

There was a huge difference though.

Clinton didn't try to get Governors to overturn legitimate results.

She didn't take spurious law suits to 66 supposedly sympathetic judges hoping that they'd support him.

She didn't encourage attacks on Congress.

There's little doubt that Russian interference helped Trump win so her complaints had merit.

There is literally no evidence to back up Trump's claims.

[WhileTheChief..]

Is the next election looking like being Biden v Trump again, or are there any other names being seriously mentioned on either side yet?

[Keith_M]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I posted the Republican article in response to post 4657 by Keith_M who said he was unaware of Clinton questioning the 2016 election result.

One example , quote from Clinton in interview with the Washington Post , “ Trump is an illegitimate president and he stole the 2016 election “.

Please explain the selective editing. Are you trying to claim Clinton has never questioned the 2016 election?

My question was genuine, mate (not that you've claimed otherwise ). Anyway, thanks for the reply.


I also agree that we have to be careful about dismissing 'news' because we don't like the source.



My feeling is that, while what you've said about both sides in the US having a habit of dismissing election results (with or without good reason) appears to be the case, what Trump and the Republicans did the last time was on a whole new level.

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is the next election looking like being Biden v Trump again, or are there any other names being seriously mentioned on either side yet?

Biden clear favourite, Harris quite a bit behind. Same with trump and DeSantis a bit behind. Republicans 8/11 to win the next election unfortunately. Parties in charge during this cost of living crisis look sitting ducks in next election, UK, US, Germany ect

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So a quote taken directly from from an interview with a newspaper like the Washington Post or the words spoken by a person in a TV discussion have to be considered as fake if they are highlighted by a particular side in politics.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I also agree that we have to be careful about dismissing 'news' because we don't like the source.

I haven't suggested dismissing the articles. In fact the complete opposite: treat everything you read carefully and try to understand the agenda of the person writing or publishing the article, and don't ascribe accuracy based on the source. And with regard to quotes, take care as quotes can be taken out of context.

Just be cautious, is my advice.

[greenginger]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I haven't suggested dismissing the articles. In fact the complete opposite: treat everything you read carefully and try to understand the agenda of the person writing or publishing the article, and don't ascribe accuracy based on the source. And with regard to quotes, take care as quotes can be taken out of context.

Just be cautious, is my advice.

Agree with you 100%.