|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 11, 2016 9:13:57 GMT 1
Interviewed this morning on R4
He was enthusiastically for the 'Remain' camp of course
What I cannot work out is whether this should count for a 'Leave' or 'Remain' broadcast in the BBC's much vaunted but seldom achieved impartiality
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 11, 2016 12:02:27 GMT 1
Interviewed this morning on R4 He was enthusiastically for the 'Remain' camp of course What I cannot work out is whether this should count for a 'Leave' or 'Remain' broadcast in the BBC's much vaunted but seldom achieved impartiality www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12059280/BBC-has-received-2m-in-EU-funding-in-run-up-to-referendum-fueling-accusations-of-bias.htmlYou have to wonder why the EU is giving grants to the BBC - and what the hell is the EU's "European Neighbourhood Policy" designed to achieve, and what's it to do with the BBC? And if Trump gets elected he'll have a few scores to settle with the beeb, won't he?! I've never seen such prejudicial coverage, of any election, anywhere. They seem to have reined it in a bit now, but they were consistently referring to him as "a joke" and "mad".
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Mar 11, 2016 12:19:15 GMT 1
Interviewed this morning on R4 He was enthusiastically for the 'Remain' camp of course What I cannot work out is whether this should count for a 'Leave' or 'Remain' broadcast in the BBC's much vaunted but seldom achieved impartiality www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12059280/BBC-has-received-2m-in-EU-funding-in-run-up-to-referendum-fueling-accusations-of-bias.htmlYou have to wonder why the EU is giving grants to the BBC - and what the hell is the EU's "European Neighbourhood Policy" designed to achieve, and what's it to do with the BBC? And if Trump gets elected he'll have a few scores to settle with the beeb, won't he?! I've never seen such prejudicial coverage, of any election, anywhere. They seem to have reined it in a bit now, but they were consistently referring to him as "a joke" and "mad". I am pleased that the BBC was prepared to tell the truth rather than waffle.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 11, 2016 15:13:43 GMT 1
...they were consistently referring to him as "a joke" and "mad". Whereas, on the other hand...?
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Mar 11, 2016 16:19:00 GMT 1
He is starting to get less funny by the day Jean, so joke no longer applies. As for the mad bit, well he might remember that taunt when he is on his first state visit to London.
(I SO want him interviewed by someone of the calibre of Paxman!)
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 12, 2016 20:09:00 GMT 1
I am pleased that the BBC was prepared to tell the truth rather than waffle. Oh, really? And how have you reached that archimedean judgement, JJ? You know Trump personally, do you? You have some realm of information about him other than from the standard media outlets? Or, as I've asked you before, what is it exactly that he's said that you so viscerally object to?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 12, 2016 20:20:13 GMT 1
...they were consistently referring to him as "a joke" and "mad". Whereas, on the other hand...? On the other hand, he's addressing urgent concerns of ordinary working- and middle-class Americans, utterly fed up and disillusioned by the upper-class capitalist oligarchical cabal that has usurped the American political system, rewarding the rich and powerful at the expense of the ordinary joe. Has that somehow escaped you, because, presumably, one or two of his sound-bites has focussed on one of the principal means of that usurpation, the encouragement of mass immigration to subvert the power of the workers? Illegal immigration in the US case (11 million of them); but what diffence does it make, when Obama and the Democrats are offering them amnesty, because most of them will vote Democrat (exactly the reason Mandleson went out recruiting immigrants during the 90s.) Or could it possibly be becuase he's opposing the trans-pacific trade deal, just like Sanders? What else could it be? His alleged reference to PMT, perhaps? Really? Has political correctness really become so absolute?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 12, 2016 20:25:54 GMT 1
He is starting to get less funny by the day Jean, so joke no longer applies. As for the mad bit, well he might remember that taunt when he is on his first state visit to London. (I SO want him interviewed by someone of the calibre of Paxman!) Paxman has interviewed him. He was quite polite and respectful, as I recall. Whether that was due to some animus between him and Scott (by most accounts, she was a bit of a handful to work with), or simply due regard, I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 12, 2016 20:31:19 GMT 1
...they were consistently referring to him as "a joke" and "mad". Whereas, on the other hand...? .... he is neither... unless you too share the 'elite' contempt for democracy
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 12, 2016 20:38:02 GMT 1
It might be instructive to reflect on the difference between today's news coverage of the disruption of Trump's Chicago rally and what would have been reported had a similar occurrence occurred in a Bernie Sanders or even Hillary meeting. The BBc and C4 have portrayed this interruption as some sort of democratic triumph, interviewing what seems like the main instigator as a kind of free-speech right-on hero. Even though as far as I'm aware Trump hasn;t said a word about black Americans, and to say he's said anything promoting "hate" is merely the usual rhetoric of lefties promoting open immigration - the usual "racist" slur we're all familiar with. Consider the situation where a Sanders rally was cancelled because of an orchestrated rally by "right-wing" protestors, storming the stage, being involved in at least with exchanges of blows and the intervention of police control. Oooooh - would the leader of such a protest then be interviewed on both channels with such ingratiating praise and thanks? I don't think so. I know so.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 13, 2016 0:05:47 GMT 1
Whereas, on the other hand...? On the other hand, he's addressing urgent concerns of ordinary working- and middle-class Americans, utterly fed up and disillusioned by the upper-class capitalist oligarchical cabal that has usurped the American political system, rewarding the rich and powerful at the expense of the ordinary joe. The bitter irony is that however much of a political outsider he may appear to be, he's no 'ordinary joe', and he has used exactly the same dubious methods in building his empire as the other capitalist oligarchs. It's true that the immigrant workers he himself used to subvert the power of the home-grown American labour he could have used instead were were actually illegal immigrants - does that make it any better? www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-says-controversy-over-his-tower-was-trumped-n397821
|
|
|
Post by jean on Mar 13, 2016 0:38:22 GMT 1
It might be instructive to reflect on the difference between today's news coverage of the disruption of Trump's Chicago rally and what would have been reported had a similar occurrence occurred in a Bernie Sanders or even Hillary meeting. Not really. If anything on that scale had happened, it would certainly have been reported. But it didn't. Apart from the fact that it's a completely pointless exercise, you do realise that your last sentence says the opposite of what you meant to say, don't you?
|
|
|
Post by aquaculture on Mar 13, 2016 1:23:15 GMT 1
A bit like Trump, then.
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Mar 14, 2016 13:15:03 GMT 1
I was unaware that Paxman had interview him, but I suspect that was before he decided he wanted to be in politics. It might be a different interview now.
Mad? No, he knows exactly what he is doing and is deliberately appealing to the sort of 'these people come over here and steal our jobs' mentality. There are unfortunately too many of them.
My main objection to him is that he simply shouts down the opposition, whether that is when there there is a staged debate, or indeed when he might face opposition in the audience. That is rare in the US as the meetings are almost always set up to be 100% Republican, or indeed Democrat.
That coupled with the fact that he thinks that with enough money he can ride roughshod over just about anyone. Lest we forget he hardly treated local residents with any sense of fairness when he built his golf course in Scotland. I seem to recall he even cut some poor farmers water supply off. Accidental of course, as were the enormous berms created so his rich golfers did not have to look at the chaps farmhouse and buildings.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Mar 14, 2016 18:18:56 GMT 1
I was unaware that Paxman had interview him, but I suspect that was before he decided he wanted to be in politics. Trump's always been in politics. He's always said he was going to be President one day too - thankfully. It's that constant ambition that's probably kept him comparatively clean and honest. Well, there are at least 11 million jobs being done by the illegal immigrants that are known about, aren't there? Didn't you recently claim "the economy would collapse" without them? Now, all those many more millions of Americans living on welfare instead of doing those low-paid shit-conditions jobs are unlikely to complain about this, as the millions of indigenous Brits doing the same while hundreds of thousand of Poles etc pick all the fruit and veg in the country don't raise too much fuss about it either. It's the working and middle classes paying for both groups of people who are worried about it, in an ever-increasing tax burden paying for all this "welfare" and an ever-decreasing disposable income because their whole wage and working-condition power has deliberately been undermined by the corporations manipulating that perverted system. You can complain that there are "too many of them" if you want - it's called democracy. Not that I've noticed - I've hardly noticed any rational opposition to shout down. There are well-corroborated accounts of insider critics of Hillary being visited by friendly people like the FBI and IRS though. And I do recall various old-timers being forcibly "escorted" out of a few Labour Party congregations not so long ago, for holding up a little A4 sized sign. I've noticed Corbyn has a masterly technique of completely ignoring any question he finds uncomfortable too. It's not Trump's way - it wasn't Churchill's either, and I'm struck by how much their personalities have in common. As with most people, a mix of good and bad. Unlike who in American politics? The only difference is that he's earned his money himself - and so far he's hardly spent a penny on his campaign. That sort of freedom buys independence and incorruptibility. The same goes for Sanders, of course - but not evidently Obama, or Clinton, who have both greatly increased the greatest threat to the US, and the world, of the corporate control of the entire political-economic system. Nothing to do with Obama's congressional logjam - he's been most supine over foreign policy, where he has virtually untrammelled power. Nothing will change until someone with enough independence and strength of will gets elected - a born maverick outsider, like either Trump or Sanders. Oh, that one again. A dozen or so people, rejecting any attempt at compromise, thereby blocking what at least looked like a major economic opportunity for their whole country (which is why Salmond and the SDP were falling over themselves to lre him there.) I watched that doc again a couple of weeks ago - they were offered far more than the thousands of people who are going to be bulldozed and compulsorily purchased out of the way of HS2. Where were the complaints when the SDP built a vast windfarm off the very same coast? I don't blame him - take another look at that film. They were a hideous eyesore in anyone's book, unless you happily live next to a gypsy encampment? Look - you don't really believe Trump ordered the cutting off of anyone's water, do you? This is a guy who's built skyscrapers in New York, Chicago, Miami. He's run casinos in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. He's started a private airline; a shipping line out of New Jersey; got the better of crooked operators like Helmsley. Think about it for a minute. Apart from a few minor civil cases over finances, bankruptcies, etc, have you ever heard a whisper about any sort of criminality, or wiseguy tactics? It's not how he operates. Now look up the miasma of semi-solid rumours and inconclusive scandals that hang about the Clintons - both of them. Maybe they're mostly innocent of most of them - just very unlucky or something (apart from the coincidental matter of becoming immesely rich, for people who have never done any work in their lives apart from "public service", of course.) But my nose they've left one helluva stink, wherever they've gone.
|
|