This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
There are sufficient threads about you-know-who so I wont create a new one but I have become a little tired over the last few months and even more so recently with this new term, Fake News, which sometimes get dressed up as Alternative Facts.
Now call me old fashioned but are we not simply referring to, well, bullshit here? Perhaps the more socially acceptable term, lies? There was even a slot on Radio4 for it this morning.
Why have these loathsome terms become the norm when simply stating that someone is talking out of their arse would be more apt a statement?
Fake News is surely something which is or false therefore a lie and a fact is either a fact or it isnt and if something isnt a fact, then its bullshit. You are either correct or you aren't.
Am I missing something here?
Post edited at 13:46
15
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Do you know your facts aren't fake, and the fake facts are fact? Or is it a catch 22, you don't know your facts are fake, you just proclaim your facts are fact in light of someone's facts they think are fact that you think are fake?
Do you know your facts aren't fake, and the fake facts are fact? Or is it a catch 22, you don't know your facts are fake, you just proclaim your facts are fact in light of someone's facts they think are fact that you think are fake?
1
12
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
For me it ranges from a different slant to a story, which is OK, through to complete lies designed to mislead, which is not.
We seem to live in a culture where the soundbite (i.e. alternative facts or fake news) are all people want. People don't seem to have time to put much thought into anything, nevermind trying to fathom out what is true and what is not.
For me it ranges from a different slant to a story, which is OK, through to complete lies designed to mislead, which is not.
We seem to live in a culture where the soundbite (i.e. alternative facts or fake news) are all people want. People don't seem to have time to put much thought into anything, nevermind trying to fathom out what is true and what is not.
4
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Who, Voldemort?
> There are sufficient threads about you-know-who so I wont create a...
Who, Voldemort?
9
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
& how do "alternative facts"relate to being "economical with the actualité "?
& how do "alternative facts"relate to being "economical with the actualité "?
In reply to Hugh J:
Perspective brother. It's all about Perspective.
Agreed. And that goes for both sides, the lefty snowflakes and right tits.
> For me it ranges from a different slant to a story, which is OK, through to complete lies designed to mislead, which is not.
Perspective brother. It's all about Perspective.
> We seem to live in a culture where the soundbite (i.e. alternative facts or fake news) are all people want. People don't seem to have time to put much thought into anything, nevermind trying to fathom out what is true and what is not.
Agreed. And that goes for both sides, the lefty snowflakes and right tits.
1
1
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
I think fake news is a good term ... its an item set up with a deliberate intent to be or look like news that sets a view based in lies or misinformation. Arguably its been around for some time. The express has been doing fake weather news for decades. A friend of mine was talking about his first US trip and how he was gut laughing at an utterly brilliant spoof news item until he relised it was intended to be real (on Fox news). Alternative facts are classic Orwellian warnings.
I think fake news is a good term ... its an item set up with a deliberate intent to be or look like news that sets a view based in lies or misinformation. Arguably its been around for some time. The express has been doing fake weather news for decades. A friend of mine was talking about his first US trip and how he was gut laughing at an utterly brilliant spoof news item until he relised it was intended to be real (on Fox news). Alternative facts are classic Orwellian warnings.
4
2
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Obviously lies and propaganda are nothing new. I think the new thing is the dissemination techniques - twitter, facebook etc. - make it easier than ever to propagate lies and also harder to get people to absorb alternative viewpoints. So maybe new terms are worth having.
Obviously lies and propaganda are nothing new. I think the new thing is the dissemination techniques - twitter, facebook etc. - make it easier than ever to propagate lies and also harder to get people to absorb alternative viewpoints. So maybe new terms are worth having.
1
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
How much fact, could a fake fact have, if the fake fact was in fact, fake?
How much fact, could a fake fact have, if the fake fact was in fact, fake?
6
1
In reply to Bootrock:
Yes, looks like one of those occasions we agree Bootrock.
Have you seen the video of Bill Maher I posted earlier in the "A liberal leftie tells it how it is!" thread?
> Agreed. And that goes for both sides, the lefty snowflakes and right tits.
Yes, looks like one of those occasions we agree Bootrock.
Have you seen the video of Bill Maher I posted earlier in the "A liberal leftie tells it how it is!" thread?
Post edited at 14:06
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Fake News = bull shit
Alternative Facts = alternative inpretation of facts to give a conclusion that varies from minority to bullshit
eg.
Fake News = bolting to start at Stanage
Alternative Facts = I think TPS is actually E2 and those who grade it lower have an ulterior motive
Fake News = bull shit
Alternative Facts = alternative inpretation of facts to give a conclusion that varies from minority to bullshit
eg.
Fake News = bolting to start at Stanage
Alternative Facts = I think TPS is actually E2 and those who grade it lower have an ulterior motive
2
In reply to MG:
Twitter seems to be absolute symptomatic of our current culture and helped get a madman in the White House. 140 characters is all you need these days, any over that is just unnecessary guff. Even your small post wouldn't make it on to one tweet. And I guess way before now, neither would this one! That makes it very easy to espouse "facts" in the form of unsubstantiate soundbites. SAD.
> Obviously lies and propaganda are nothing new. I think the new thing is the dissemination techniques - twitter, facebook etc. - make it easier than ever to propagate lies and also harder to get people to absorb alternative viewpoints. So maybe new terms are worth having.
Twitter seems to be absolute symptomatic of our current culture and helped get a madman in the White House. 140 characters is all you need these days, any over that is just unnecessary guff. Even your small post wouldn't make it on to one tweet. And I guess way before now, neither would this one! That makes it very easy to espouse "facts" in the form of unsubstantiate soundbites. SAD.
2
1
In reply to Philip:
It was Kellyanne Conway that used the term "alternative facts" to refute Trump's inauguration day attendance figures, which was bullshit as you put it.
> Fake News = bull shit
> Alternative Facts
It was Kellyanne Conway that used the term "alternative facts" to refute Trump's inauguration day attendance figures, which was bullshit as you put it.
1
In reply to Philip:
Not really. Alternative facts=sugar coating for blatant barefaced lies
> Alternative Facts = alternative inpretation of facts to give a conclusion that varies from minority to bullshit
Not really. Alternative facts=sugar coating for blatant barefaced lies
5
In reply to Bootrock:
No, it really isn't. Some things are simply true or not true.
> Perspective brother. It's all about Perspective.
No, it really isn't. Some things are simply true or not true.
4
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
It's right up there with "mechanical doping" isn't it.
Liars and cheaters.
It's right up there with "mechanical doping" isn't it.
Liars and cheaters.
1
In reply to Hugh J:
I have, i disagree with the whole globalisation thing but yea I quite like him, he's interesting to watch, him and that other guy, I can't remember his name? Pie? His rant after Trumps
Victory was spot on.
I have, i disagree with the whole globalisation thing but yea I quite like him, he's interesting to watch, him and that other guy, I can't remember his name? Pie? His rant after Trumps
Victory was spot on.
In reply to Bootrock:
What? Is this an attempt to appear deep or shitfaced? I can't tell anymore.
Facts are verifiable.
jk
> Do you know your facts aren't fake, and the fake facts are fact? Or is it a catch 22, you don't know your facts are fake, you just proclaim your facts are fact in light of someone's facts they think are fact that you think are fake?
What? Is this an attempt to appear deep or shitfaced? I can't tell anymore.
Facts are verifiable.
jk
1
In reply to MG:
That's your perspective.
> No, it really isn't. Some things are simply true or not true.
That's your perspective.
1
In reply to Bootrock:
Yes, Jonathan Pie, more satirecal than Bill Maher, but also very good.
> . . . . him and that other guy, I can't remember his name? Pie?
Yes, Jonathan Pie, more satirecal than Bill Maher, but also very good.
In reply to jkarran:
Neither. Although a cheeky rum wouldn't go amiss.
I was taking the piss. Chill out. I am not always a dickhead.
They are. Yes. But what if theirs sources verifying the fake facts as facts?
Scientists said the world was flat, but we found out that infact the world wasn't flat.
What interesting facts the future holds, no one knows.
> What? Is this an attempt to appear deep or shitfaced? I can't tell anymore.
Neither. Although a cheeky rum wouldn't go amiss.
I was taking the piss. Chill out. I am not always a dickhead.
> Facts are verifiable.
They are. Yes. But what if theirs sources verifying the fake facts as facts?
Scientists said the world was flat, but we found out that infact the world wasn't flat.
What interesting facts the future holds, no one knows.
In reply to MG:
Whilst this is obviously a true staement, there is a massive area in between that is about perception. It must also be remembered that unless you have all or at least most of the actual evidence in front of you, then there is no knowing who is telling the truth.
> No, it really isn't. Some things are simply true or not true.
Whilst this is obviously a true staement, there is a massive area in between that is about perception. It must also be remembered that unless you have all or at least most of the actual evidence in front of you, then there is no knowing who is telling the truth.
1
In reply to Bootrock:
[...]
The original fake facts are still fake, fake verification does not unfake fake facts. Fact.
Please try this with a different set of actors, because "science" as we know it today is really a product of the enlightenment by which time the world's shape was pretty much agreed upon as an oblate spheriod.
[...]
> They are. Yes. But what if theirs sources verifying the fake facts as facts?
The original fake facts are still fake, fake verification does not unfake fake facts. Fact.
> Scientists said the world was flat, but we found out that infact the world wasn't flat.
Please try this with a different set of actors, because "science" as we know it today is really a product of the enlightenment by which time the world's shape was pretty much agreed upon as an oblate spheriod.
In reply to MG:
belief
noun
1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
fact
noun
1. a thing that is known or proved to be true.
I would say ITP was right.
Unless that was a Trumpian "WRONG"
> Wrong.
belief
noun
1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
fact
noun
1. a thing that is known or proved to be true.
I would say ITP was right.
Unless that was a Trumpian "WRONG"
Post edited at 16:39
1
In reply to Hugh J:
Feel free to jump out of a second floor window and believe really really hard you won't hurt yourself. I'm sure youll be fine.
Feel free to jump out of a second floor window and believe really really hard you won't hurt yourself. I'm sure youll be fine.
Post edited at 16:44
1
In reply to Bootrock:
I heard some fake news this morning. Apparently the Mona Lisa painted by Rolf Harris isn't the real thing!
Also I have alternative facts. I have two arms. Alternatively I have two legs and two eyes
I heard some fake news this morning. Apparently the Mona Lisa painted by Rolf Harris isn't the real thing!
Also I have alternative facts. I have two arms. Alternatively I have two legs and two eyes
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
You posted at 13:40 Mon and your first response was 13:45 Mon
Five minutes to catch yourself a 'Bootrock'. Might be a record.
You posted at 13:40 Mon and your first response was 13:45 Mon
Five minutes to catch yourself a 'Bootrock'. Might be a record.
1
In reply to MG:
?????
But that's belief, not fact. They are at opposite ends of the plausibilty spectrum.
> Feel free to jump out of a second floor window and believe really really hard you won't hurt yourself. I'm sure youll be fine.
?????
But that's belief, not fact. They are at opposite ends of the plausibilty spectrum.
In reply to Hugh J:
Exactly. The fact is you will hurt yourself
Believing otherwise doesn't change this.
> ?????
> But that's belief, not fact.
Exactly. The fact is you will hurt yourself
Believing otherwise doesn't change this.
In reply to Bootrock:
Evidence?
What?
Science is a tool set with which we can explore and test our findings, as our ability to observe and explore grows our understanding grows with it. Some things we've come through the scientific method to understand very well: the size and shape of our home how it moves around our star, how species evolve, how to count mass-transit users... these things provide us with facts that are very unlikely to be substantially changed by future findings. Our methods and understanding may improve incrementally but there is very unlikely to be a huge 'flat-earth' revolution in it. In some areas our understanding is still poor, multiple incompletely evidenced theories compete: the manner of the formation of our moor for example, our best understanding to date, the big glancing blow may be swept away at a stroke should key evidence emerge and withstand testing to support a better theory. None of that means we can't reliably interpret much of the world around us, it's not all false, debatable, each individual's truth equally valid!
jk
> I was taking the piss. Chill out. I am not always a dickhead.
Evidence?
> They are. Yes. But what if theirs sources verifying the fake facts as facts?
What?
> Scientists said the world was flat, but we found out that infact the world wasn't flat.
Science is a tool set with which we can explore and test our findings, as our ability to observe and explore grows our understanding grows with it. Some things we've come through the scientific method to understand very well: the size and shape of our home how it moves around our star, how species evolve, how to count mass-transit users... these things provide us with facts that are very unlikely to be substantially changed by future findings. Our methods and understanding may improve incrementally but there is very unlikely to be a huge 'flat-earth' revolution in it. In some areas our understanding is still poor, multiple incompletely evidenced theories compete: the manner of the formation of our moor for example, our best understanding to date, the big glancing blow may be swept away at a stroke should key evidence emerge and withstand testing to support a better theory. None of that means we can't reliably interpret much of the world around us, it's not all false, debatable, each individual's truth equally valid!
jk
In reply to jkarran:
Also scientists never said the world was flat. The Greeks had that figured out!
Also scientists never said the world was flat. The Greeks had that figured out!
2
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
yes you are but so are most of us.
I see this as a slow process to instate a regime of tyranny.
Step one, discredit media at large.
Step two, big up own media.
Step three, imprison the few rebellious journalists who have not flocked to your media.
Obviously, in parallel you will also have made other aspects of society undergo that type of eroding ...et voilà, you're ruling a people with an iron fist and they are subjugated.
yes you are but so are most of us.
I see this as a slow process to instate a regime of tyranny.
Step one, discredit media at large.
Step two, big up own media.
Step three, imprison the few rebellious journalists who have not flocked to your media.
Obviously, in parallel you will also have made other aspects of society undergo that type of eroding ...et voilà, you're ruling a people with an iron fist and they are subjugated.
Post edited at 17:19
3
In reply to jkarran:
Take off the Snowflake glasses and you will see it.
That's an incorrect use of "theirs" by the way. Typo.
Exactly. What was once fact is now not fact.
> Evidence?
Take off the Snowflake glasses and you will see it.
> What?
That's an incorrect use of "theirs" by the way. Typo.
> Science is a tool set with which we can explore and test our findings, as our ability to observe and explore grows our understanding grows with it. Some things we've come through the scientific method to understand very well: the size and shape of our home how it moves around our star, how species evolve, how to count mass-transit users... these things provide us with facts that are very unlikely to be substantially changed by future findings. Our methods and understanding may improve incrementally but there is very unlikely to be a huge 'flat-earth' revolution in it. In some areas our understanding is still poor, multiple incompletely evidenced theories compete: the manner of the formation of our moor for example, our best understanding to date, the big glancing blow may be swept away at a stroke should key evidence emerge and withstand testing to support a better theory. None of that means we can't reliably interpret much of the world around us, it's not all false, debatable, each individual's truth equally valid!
Exactly. What was once fact is now not fact.
In reply to MG:
Isn't a bit silly to argue a point like that?
How about... intelligence is genetic
Or to take your example. Two stories isn't very high, it's certainly not out of the question I could escape unharmed. Of course, our perception of what constitutes hurt may differ. Is a bruise hurt? Or a broken leg? Or permanently disabled? At what point do we accept that fact is utterly unarguable? At what point do we rely on the evidence of others?
Is it a fact that the Higgs boson exists?
Isn't a bit silly to argue a point like that?
How about... intelligence is genetic
Or to take your example. Two stories isn't very high, it's certainly not out of the question I could escape unharmed. Of course, our perception of what constitutes hurt may differ. Is a bruise hurt? Or a broken leg? Or permanently disabled? At what point do we accept that fact is utterly unarguable? At what point do we rely on the evidence of others?
Is it a fact that the Higgs boson exists?
In reply to XXXX:
No, it's a pretty fundemental point about the world. Belief doesn't define reality - there are objective facts. Pretending otherwise is just post-modern garbage.
Make it higher if you prefer. The point is you will fall (yes yes, the house is on earth etc, etc). Believing otherwise doesn't change that.
> Isn't a bit silly to argue a point like that?
No, it's a pretty fundemental point about the world. Belief doesn't define reality - there are objective facts. Pretending otherwise is just post-modern garbage.
> Or to take your example. Two stories isn't very high,
Make it higher if you prefer. The point is you will fall (yes yes, the house is on earth etc, etc). Believing otherwise doesn't change that.
1
In reply to MG:
I'm not saying there are no facts. Clearly there are (or as near as possible).
The Higgs boson exists. Fact or belief?
I'm not saying there are no facts. Clearly there are (or as near as possible).
The Higgs boson exists. Fact or belief?
In reply to MG:
Firstly, you're being too literal about what is news or essentially points of view. Now Trump saying there were 1.5M at his inauguration is "alternative facts" or "fake news" or more realistically a big fat lie. But, news is not always just facts but interpretation of a point of view or social theory amongst other stuff as well as facts. The plane crashed killing all on board is very different from Nigel Farage thinking we'll be better off out of the EU, but both are still news. Who is to say that he won't be proved right? Not that I BELIEVE that.
Secondly, I thought the accepted theory now is that the earth is actually falling towards you!
> No, it's a pretty fundemental point about the world. Belief doesn't define reality - there are objective facts. Pretending otherwise is just post-modern garbage.
Firstly, you're being too literal about what is news or essentially points of view. Now Trump saying there were 1.5M at his inauguration is "alternative facts" or "fake news" or more realistically a big fat lie. But, news is not always just facts but interpretation of a point of view or social theory amongst other stuff as well as facts. The plane crashed killing all on board is very different from Nigel Farage thinking we'll be better off out of the EU, but both are still news. Who is to say that he won't be proved right? Not that I BELIEVE that.
> Make it higher if you prefer. The point is you will fall (yes yes, the house is on earth etc, etc). Believing otherwise doesn't change that.
Secondly, I thought the accepted theory now is that the earth is actually falling towards you!
Post edited at 18:19
1
In reply to XXXX:
It either does or doesn't, either way that is a fact.
Currently we believe that it does. This doesn't affect the fact of it existing (or not).
> I'm not saying there are no facts. Clearly there are (or as near as possible).
> The Higgs boson exists. Fact or belief?
It either does or doesn't, either way that is a fact.
Currently we believe that it does. This doesn't affect the fact of it existing (or not).
2
In reply to XXXX:
Of what? It highlights that facts and belief are entirely different, and not on a spectrum, as you suggested.
Of what? It highlights that facts and belief are entirely different, and not on a spectrum, as you suggested.
1
In reply to MG:
In particle physics even that isn't true!
Anyway, at this stage of proceedings I'd probably go with the Higg's boson being the best explanation of the observed data. Given the passage of time and more data and it might graduate to being conventional wisdom. The data are facts, the Higg's boson is our best interpretation.
> It either does or doesn't, either way that is a fact.
In particle physics even that isn't true!
Anyway, at this stage of proceedings I'd probably go with the Higg's boson being the best explanation of the observed data. Given the passage of time and more data and it might graduate to being conventional wisdom. The data are facts, the Higg's boson is our best interpretation.
2
In reply to Bootrock:
Well I suppose that's one way of looking at it, if I thought like you I might not think you're a dick but I don't and I do.
Fine but so far as I can tell there's still nothing you can replace 'theirs' with in your sentence to make it make sense.
If that's seriously all you take from what I wrote you're a cretin. What is the current best theory with the strongest evidence may be superseded by a better one. Where there has been any significant investigation previously rather than when examining ideas born of speculation and superstition those improved theories don't tend to be revolutionary.
jk
> Take off the Snowflake glasses and you will see it.
Well I suppose that's one way of looking at it, if I thought like you I might not think you're a dick but I don't and I do.
> That's an incorrect use of "theirs" by the way. Typo.
Fine but so far as I can tell there's still nothing you can replace 'theirs' with in your sentence to make it make sense.
> Exactly. What was once fact is now not fact.
If that's seriously all you take from what I wrote you're a cretin. What is the current best theory with the strongest evidence may be superseded by a better one. Where there has been any significant investigation previously rather than when examining ideas born of speculation and superstition those improved theories don't tend to be revolutionary.
jk
2
2
In reply to jkarran:
I am in fact a dick. Your point is? My point was, stop emotionally knee jerking and read.
Funny how it's always you snowflakes that have to make it personal.
"OH MY GOD TRUMP," spew out the typical usual pish and look for the things that fit your agenda. I mean Christ, we have a thread on here about boycotting American products hahaha! How can boycotting private companies affect a president that was elected in?
Will there be a boycott of Chinese products, in protest of various human rights violations and gender selective abortion?
I was being sarky.
science is constantly rediscovering or redefining facts. Facts can change. What was once fact, no longer is a fact when new facts are found.
The fact is Trump is president. Get over it. I am infact getting rather tired of all this liberal whinging.
> Well I suppose that's one way of looking at it, if I thought like you I might not think you're a dick but I don't and I do.
I am in fact a dick. Your point is? My point was, stop emotionally knee jerking and read.
Funny how it's always you snowflakes that have to make it personal.
"OH MY GOD TRUMP," spew out the typical usual pish and look for the things that fit your agenda. I mean Christ, we have a thread on here about boycotting American products hahaha! How can boycotting private companies affect a president that was elected in?
Will there be a boycott of Chinese products, in protest of various human rights violations and gender selective abortion?
> Fine but so far as I can tell there's still nothing you can replace 'theirs' with in your sentence to make it make sense.
I was being sarky.
> If that's seriously all you take from what I wrote you're a cretin. What is the current best theory with the strongest evidence may be superseded by a better one. Where there has been any significant investigation previously rather than when examining ideas born of speculation and superstition those improved theories don't tend to be revolutionary.
science is constantly rediscovering or redefining facts. Facts can change. What was once fact, no longer is a fact when new facts are found.
The fact is Trump is president. Get over it. I am infact getting rather tired of all this liberal whinging.
1
2
In reply to Bootrock:
umm, hang on. OH, never mind... !
> Funny how it's always you snowflakes that have to make it personal.
umm, hang on. OH, never mind... !
2
In reply to Bootrock:
I think where you're struggling is the difference between a theory / model and a fact. When new facts come to light the theory or model get ammended, but new facts don't "replace" old facts.
> [...]
> science is constantly rediscovering or redefining facts. Facts can change. What was once fact, no longer is a fact when new facts are found.
I think where you're struggling is the difference between a theory / model and a fact. When new facts come to light the theory or model get ammended, but new facts don't "replace" old facts.
1
In reply to Bootrock:
Really? You think America's corporations lack political clout? You can't see a potential mechanism there for influencing policy? or perhaps you bought the whole 'I'm above it all because I'm so rich' baloney?
Probably no new round of them without a new trigger but there has been plenty of protest in the past at these things when previous British governments have sought to gloss over them while tightening ties with Beijing.
Trump is coming in for particular criticism at the moment because a) he's making potentially very dangerous changes to the conduct of American politics and b) we feel connected to America culturally and with our anti-EU stance have thrown ourselves into Trump's maw for better or worse. Of course he's not the only monster out there, not even the worst we deal with and appease but he is the one we're currently seeking favour with. Some revulsion and protest is understandable.
The scientific method is used to continually review and improve *theories*.
jk
> "OH MY GOD TRUMP," spew out the typical usual pish and look for the things that fit your agenda. I mean Christ, we have a thread on here about boycotting American products hahaha! How can boycotting private companies affect a president that was elected in?
Really? You think America's corporations lack political clout? You can't see a potential mechanism there for influencing policy? or perhaps you bought the whole 'I'm above it all because I'm so rich' baloney?
> Will there be a boycott of Chinese products, in protest of various human rights violations and gender selective abortion?
Probably no new round of them without a new trigger but there has been plenty of protest in the past at these things when previous British governments have sought to gloss over them while tightening ties with Beijing.
Trump is coming in for particular criticism at the moment because a) he's making potentially very dangerous changes to the conduct of American politics and b) we feel connected to America culturally and with our anti-EU stance have thrown ourselves into Trump's maw for better or worse. Of course he's not the only monster out there, not even the worst we deal with and appease but he is the one we're currently seeking favour with. Some revulsion and protest is understandable.
> science is constantly rediscovering or redefining facts. Facts can change. What was once fact, no longer is a fact when new facts are found.
The scientific method is used to continually review and improve *theories*.
jk
In reply to jkarran:
Nope. But there's companies there that actively don't support trump.
People work for companies, these people can be trump supports or non trump supporters.
A new trigger? You mean bandwagon?
A) what's your problem with that.
B) there won't be much culture left with the EU and globalism getting its fingers in.
Yes.
> Really? You think America's corporations lack political clout? You can't see a potential mechanism there for influencing policy? or perhaps you bought the whole 'I'm above it all because I'm so rich' baloney?
Nope. But there's companies there that actively don't support trump.
People work for companies, these people can be trump supports or non trump supporters.
> Probably no new round of them without a new trigger but there has been plenty of protest in the past at these things when previous British governments have sought to gloss over them while tightening ties with Beijing.
A new trigger? You mean bandwagon?
> Trump is coming in for particular criticism at the moment because a) he's making potentially very dangerous changes to the conduct of American politics and b) we feel connected to America culturally and with our anti-EU stance have thrown ourselves into Trump's maw for better or worse. Of course he's not the only monster out there, not even the worst we deal with and appease but he is the one we're currently seeking favour with. Some revulsion and protest is understandable
A) what's your problem with that.
B) there won't be much culture left with the EU and globalism getting its fingers in.
> The scientific method is used to continually review and improve *theories*.
Yes.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...