• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

monkeybarry said:
I will be shocked if he knew before last week/recently.
If he knew before/during Mandelsons tenure, then it is a resigning matter.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I would be shocked if he didn't know. His inconsistent statements give that away. He's been scrambling with BS upon BS for months on this topic.
 
monkeybarry said:
I don't doubt any of that - such is current relationship with the US, that the things you mention become qualifications for the role.

But it doesn't address the question - was Starmer informed and Mandelson not passing Dev Vetting.
What you describe about is politics.
What is being discussed is Appointment to Public Office. They are different things.
It's worth educating yourself on the difference for the purposes of this conversation.
Click to expand...
It is implausible for me that Starmer wasn't aware to some extent about the vetyimg
thfcsteff said:
No it isn't.
Putin plays 3D chess.
First Orban, then unsettling British and American public via sustained and clever social media manipulation, then Brexit, then Trump...

Hillary Clinton's BIGGEST problem was that she and the democrats did not read the room when it came to messaging. By the 2016 Presidential Race, no-one actually gave a damn about the issues, they just wanted to hear what they wanted to hear. She also misjudged the working class, thinking they'd see him coming; she should've studied how to win that media campaign. Trump was relentless in hammering twitter length logic.

The other big issue was that the US was not ready for a female President. No, she would've been a decent President.

n.b. on Putin, losing Orban might be a great sign that his worldview is starting to break apart. Hope so.
Click to expand...
People aren't really that influenced by social media. The idea that Putin is sat there influencing everyone to vote a certain way is up there with the moon landings being faked. Most people are inclined to vote a certain way anyway and
thfcsteff said:
No it isn't.
Putin plays 3D chess.
First Orban, then unsettling British and American public via sustained and clever social media manipulation, then Brexit, then Trump...

Hillary Clinton's BIGGEST problem was that she and the democrats did not read the room when it came to messaging. By the 2016 Presidential Race, no-one actually gave a damn about the issues, they just wanted to hear what they wanted to hear. She also misjudged the working class, thinking they'd see him coming; she should've studied how to win that media campaign. Trump was relentless in hammering twitter length logic.

The other big issue was that the US was not ready for a female President. No, she would've been a decent President.

n.b. on Putin, losing Orban might be a great sign that his worldview is starting to break apart. Hope so.
Click to expand...
I mean, this is one step down from "the moon landings never happened". Misinformation, disinformation, its happened for as long as time.

Putin doesn't have people dancing to the puppet master and political affiliation is pretty siloed. You don't get loads of people voting democrat (or labour in this country) and then next election those same people vote republican or tory.

Elections are generally about getting your base to turn out. So in 2024, was there a mass switch from tory to labour? No, labour actually got less votes than they did in the 2019 election. But the people that voted tory in 2019 generally did not vote at all.

So in 2016, Trump inspired the republican base more than clinton inspired the democrat base where it mattered. In 2020, republicans tired of trump. But after a pretty abysmal Biden presidency, the swing back to Trump occurred as democrats were not motivated to turn out to keep him in and Republicans were motivated to turn out to boot him out. Harris came in late and performed poorly, reinforcing the impression that the democrats were floundering.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
People aren't really that influenced by social media.
Click to expand...
Your head is firmly in the clouds if you genuinely believe that to be the case.


Silly McSilly Face said:
The idea that Putin is sat there influencing everyone to vote a certain way is up there with the moon landings being faked. Most people are inclined to vote a certain way anyway and

I mean, this is one step down from "the moon landings never happened". Misinformation, disinformation, its happened for as long as time.
Click to expand...

As long as time indeed. But never with the speed, access, outreach and overload that is made possible by social media.
With regards to Putin, he most certainly had a huge hand in your favourite referendum messaging. I mean look, if you want to baffle it off as 'mad-talk' that's fine, but I'd suggest your head is in the sand or you simply don't want to acknowledge it.

https://www.reuters.com/article/tec...L5JEZoTwaDetyKhivEZhpc4byfDiT2jUaAo3MEALw_wcB

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...ling-facebook-had-links-to-russian-university

Finally, here. Just one study on social media being used a news source for a significant amount of people (this study is based in the US). Like it or not (and your gruff rejection suggests you don't) it is happening frequently.

https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/social-media-and-news-fact-sheet/


Silly McSilly Face said:
Putin doesn't have people dancing to the puppet master and political affiliation is pretty siloed. You don't get loads of people voting democrat (or labour in this country) and then next election those same people vote republican or tory.
Click to expand...

What's your actual source for that other than opinion?


Silly McSilly Face said:
Elections are generally about getting your base to turn out. So in 2024, was there a mass switch from tory to labour? No, labour actually got less votes than they did in the 2019 election. But the people that voted tory in 2019 generally did not vote at all.
Click to expand...

First of all, I'm going to guess that covid and the fudge-ups of Johnson's goon squad helped their demise/lack of turnout. Secondly, what are your sources for these statements (unless they are just your opinions).


Silly McSilly Face said:
So in 2016, Trump inspired the republican base more than clinton inspired the democrat base where it mattered.
Click to expand...

And why was that? Three guesses...


Silly McSilly Face said:
In 2020, republicans tired of trump. But after a pretty abysmal Biden presidency, the swing back to Trump occurred as democrats were not motivated to turn out to keep him in and Republicans were motivated to turn out to boot him out. Harris came in late and performed poorly, reinforcing the impression that the democrats were floundering.
Click to expand...

Do you actually know how the campaigns were run? I witnessed it regularly. What you're saying is (if I was being polite) wonderfully idealistic. The truth is far, far dirtier and (as I keep trying to illustrate) involves the mass manipulation of average people with lie after lie lie peddaled and delivered by various forms of social media. Trump is incredible at knowing how to bombard people with shock statements, shock 'fact', and shock 'truths' in very very few real words. Social media. He actually uses social media as his primary communication platform.

Again, ignore it if you want, but this is not conspiracy flimflam, it's happened and continues to happen in front of you!
 
Might watch this at 3.30pm

In about 90 minutes' time, the prime minister is due to start making his case about Peter Mandelson's vetting process as he faces MPs in the Commons.

Here's a quick summary from this morning and a look ahead to the rest of the day:

Who has said what?
What's coming up?
  • At 13:30 BST - Starmer will address MPs in the House of Commons
  • On Tuesday morning - the most senior civil servant in the Foreign Office, Olly Robbins, who left his post on Thursday, will give evidence before the Foreign Affairs Committee
 
I don’t believe what he says today will have a bearing on anything. All eyes/ears are on what Olly Robbins will say to the Select Committee tomorrow.
 
thfcsteff said:
Your head is firmly in the clouds if you genuinely believe that to be the case.




As long as time indeed. But never with the speed, access, outreach and overload that is made possible by social media.
With regards to Putin, he most certainly had a huge hand in your favourite referendum messaging. I mean look, if you want to baffle it off as 'mad-talk' that's fine, but I'd suggest your head is in the sand or you simply don't want to acknowledge it.

https://www.reuters.com/article/tec...L5JEZoTwaDetyKhivEZhpc4byfDiT2jUaAo3MEALw_wcB

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...ling-facebook-had-links-to-russian-university

Finally, here. Just one study on social media being used a news source for a significant amount of people (this study is based in the US). Like it or not (and your gruff rejection suggests you don't) it is happening frequently.

https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/social-media-and-news-fact-sheet/




What's your actual source for that other than opinion?




First of all, I'm going to guess that covid and the fudge-ups of Johnson's goon squad helped their demise/lack of turnout. Secondly, what are your sources for these statements (unless they are just your opinions).




And why was that? Three guesses...




Do you actually know how the campaigns were run? I witnessed it regularly. What you're saying is (if I was being polite) wonderfully idealistic. The truth is far, far dirtier and (as I keep trying to illustrate) involves the mass manipulation of average people with lie after lie lie peddaled and delivered by various forms of social media. Trump is incredible at knowing how to bombard people with shock statements, shock 'fact', and shock 'truths' in very very few real words. Social media. He actually uses social media as his primary communication platform.

Again, ignore it if you want, but this is not conspiracy flimflam, it's happened and continues to happen in front of you!
Click to expand...
There is a lot to unpack here. In terms of general political trends, it is all out there. You refer to the 2016 referendum as my favourite referendum? I didn't ask for a referendum. I would have been content without one. Most people would have been. On this obsession with Russian interference in Brexit - what gain for Russia really? The EU is not a military organisation and has no impact on that side of geopolitics. The UK's lead in getting EU countries like Germany to abandon reliance on Russian oil and gas illustrates the point.

While Russian/Chinese/Iranian influence must be monitored, there is little evidence there has been a significant impact on people's outlook or political persuasion.

I maintain that Trump could and would have been beaten both times with better candidates and campaigns from the Democrats.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
There is a lot to unpack here. In terms of general political trends, it is all out there.
Click to expand...

Sadly you're right, there is a lot to unpack, and frankly, the moderates/non-right are still getting to grips with it.


Silly McSilly Face said:
You refer to the 2016 referendum as my favourite referendum? I didn't ask for a referendum. I would have been content without one. Most people would have been.
Click to expand...

Hmm, in fairness I was being glib. When I suggested that people had been manipulated, you got upset and suggested I was insulting people's intelligence, specifically implying that only average-to-dumb people get manipulated, which is absolutely not true whatsoever.



Silly McSilly Face said:
On this obsession with Russian interference in Brexit - what gain for Russia really? The EU is not a military organisation and has no impact on that side of geopolitics. The UK's lead in getting EU countries like Germany to abandon reliance on Russian oil and gas illustrates the point.
Click to expand...

If you can sew and foment seperation and distrust between allies, resulting in breaking them apart and causing such a union to weaken generally, then you can operate and manouvre as you wish to execute plans. I'd suggest that in planting the seeds of populismm throughout the world (with Brexit being part of that) Putin has managed to make anti-Russian/Putin voices and sentiments far less cohesive and therefore threatening. I understand it remains a point of debate, and will likely do so for sometime.



Silly McSilly Face said:
While Russian/Chinese/Iranian influence must be monitored, there is little evidence there has been a significant impact on people's outlook or political persuasion.

I maintain that Trump could and would have been beaten both times with better candidates and campaigns from the Democrats.
Click to expand...

Two things helped Trump more than anything IMO. Misinformation on a mass scale, and assumptive lethargy. The first time, people simply did not think it was possible and plenty of dems did not bother to vote because they thought it was de fait accompli. The second time? Again, under-estimation...plus some particulrly egregious 'tactics' on Trump's part to keep his voters on tap. I do agree that the confusion in democratic leadership was fatal/also assisted Trump, and that it was theirs to lose.

I have to say, I think you'd be astounded at some of the public views in certain parts of the US. There are significant amounts of people who believe the earth is flat!

p.s. what Iranian influence? Could you define what you mean there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back