"Currants Bw..."

[Power n Glory]

I'm not convinced that's true, it's like with Brexit....some people who voted Leave will tell you how much they thought some of the inflammatory posters were beyond the pale. It's because they don't want to admit to themselves that it works, if Trump had made a lot of vague promises without the incendiary rhetoric i don't think he'd have won at all.

And that's another reason why i don't think Bernie Sanders would have won, look at the last time an American candidate for President totally took the high ground (1988 - Michael Dukakis) he got utterly and totally destroyed by the Bush machine.

If Trump said something controversial, and the media panned him for it, than the narrative spikes that this is proof that the media is out of touch and biased, the media would not have been as scathing as Trump if he'd posited himself as a businessman looking to shake up Washington.....it needed the negativity and channelling into the subconscious sense of fear and dislike in order to win.

Don't get me wrong i still think Trump is totally contemptible, but the unpleasantness was essential to his campaign.

You may have to explain that one again.

I think the mistrust the public have for mainstream media has worked and if anything, the negative publicity helped Trumps campaign, but people don't necessarily trust the narrative.

I think anyone that presented themselves as the different candidate and represented change had a good shot. That's why Clinton was a lost cause.

[Kano]

No it is exactly the same, it's saying America has got involved in military adventures to justify a bloated defence budget (an oversimplification but not necessarily untrue either) that this can then be used to justify anything Russia does. It doesn't.

It boils down i'm afraid to the West are the ones who started it? (what that has to do with anything i'm unclear) therefore we have to tolerate Russia land grabbing from it's neighbours and propping up and assisting a brutal dictator in order to keep it's control over the oil in Syria (the exact thing we have correctly lambasting America for doing, but too many people are guilty of failing to apply that sense of outrage to others).

I'm not sure where this generalisation of 'justifying anything Russia does' has come from. Apart from your own posts of course. We are speaking in simplistic terms on a football forum, this isn't where in depth analysis and discussion can be held. Simple points are put across, back and forth. Maybe that explains why you are talking about Russia being forgiven for anything they do, I'm not sure.

Focusing on military interference is not enough. When you combine the social, economic, political AND military destruction caused implicitly by the US leading their allies, then you have a broader picture of where the immediate danger and harm lies to the world around us. This isn't about handing out free passes to anyone. What people should be concerned about are the aggressive psychological and physical forces that are tipping the West and - because of the globalised world - everyone else into misery. The good news is, that there are signs that by doing so, that grip over society will continue to loosen bit by bit.

[Niall_Quinn]

Mainstream media trust has already gone out the window. Trump wouldn't have won without it. Things were never post Iraq War and the recession. People are fragmented. Trump did not run an inclusive campaign and could have easily won without a lot of the things he's said about certain groups.

Are you saying Trump WOULDN'T have won without the mainstream media?

Have you ever stopped to consider that what Trump campaigned on is what he intends to do, or try to do? He hasn't been inclusive towards illegal immigrants. What's wrong with that, if we consider things from the viewpoint of state and the law? He hasn't been inclusive of immigrants arriving from Muslim nations that can't be properly vetted, what's wrong with that in terms of security considering the number of attacks Muslim fanatics have perpetrated against civilian targets in the west?

Women, blacks, legal immigrants. What policies does he have that exclude these people? If anything, I rated him a little too inclusive of blacks and latinos, it sounded to me like they were in line for special policies and favouritism. Understandable maybe, as these communities have fallen behind under years of Democratic neglect of the inner cities. But the opposite of the accusations of non-inclusiveness nonetheless.

It seems to me that most liberals don't actually know what Trump's policies are. Instead they have listened to far-spun distortions leveraged by the leftist mainstream media. The idea Trump is a racist, a bigot or a misogynist is preposterous. A rich, privileged, brash playboy type surrounded by gold-diggers - sure. But beyond that there's not a shred of proof of any of the slander that has been thrown at him.

Where are all these women who accused him during the campaign, btw? Shouldn't it be a big thing that a man guilty of all these abuses against women is now the president elect? That shit seems to have fallen off the scope. I wonder why? Indeed several of the women have retracted their claims already, and it appears they aren't going to be prosecuted. Well they should be.

Trump is many things, some of them unpleasant. But only fools with an agenda or deep bitterness and resentment of the election result believe the bullshit hype being pushed by the now exposed and discredited mainstream media.

[Niall_Quinn]

No it is exactly the same, it's saying America has got involved in military adventures to justify a bloated defence budget (an oversimplification but not necessarily untrue either) that this can then be used to justify anything Russia does. It doesn't.

It boils down i'm afraid to the West are the ones who started it? (what that has to do with anything i'm unclear) therefore we have to tolerate Russia land grabbing from it's neighbours and propping up and assisting a brutal dictator in order to keep it's control over the oil in Syria (the exact thing we have correctly lambasting America for doing, but too many people are guilty of failing to apply that sense of outrage to others).

You are spinning out of control.

Russia WAS NOT in Syria before the US went in.

Russia WAS NOT in Ukraine before the US went in.

Russia was not anywhere, except behind its own borders, before NATO was transformed from a cold war alliance against the Soviet Union into an expansionist vehicle for US and European interests.

I don't think you understand what the cold war was about, how it held the word back from open conflict and how spheres of influence kept the balance of power precariously level. The US has trampled all over that delicate balance and made the immediate concern one of conflict or the avoidance of conflict with Russia. This is way beyond the moral in and outs and meanderings designed to justify the US aggression and expansionism that is ratcheting up global tensions.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

You may have to explain that one again.

I think the mistrust the public have for mainstream media has worked and if anything, the negative publicity helped Trumps campaign, but people don't necessarily trust the narrative.

I think anyone that presented themselves as the different candidate and represented change had a good shot. That's why Clinton was a lost cause.

That's the point, the more vitriolic Trump became the more negatively the mainstream media responded and the more justification Trump has for claiming institutional bias.

It wasn't about making people positive for change, it was about making people frightened of things staying the same.

[Power n Glory]

Are you saying Trump WOULDN'T have won without the mainstream media?

Have you ever stopped to consider that what Trump campaigned on is what he intends to do, or try to do? He hasn't been inclusive towards illegal immigrants. What's wrong with that, if we consider things from the viewpoint of state and the law? He hasn't been inclusive of immigrants arriving from Muslim nations that can't be properly vetted, what's wrong with that in terms of security considering the number of attacks Muslim fanatics have perpetrated against civilian targets in the west?

Women, blacks, legal immigrants. What policies does he have that exclude these people? If anything, I rated him a little too inclusive of blacks and latinos, it sounded to me like they were in line for special policies and favouritism. Understandable maybe, as these communities have fallen behind under years of Democratic neglect of the inner cities. But the opposite of the accusations of non-inclusiveness nonetheless.

It seems to me that most liberals don't actually know what Trump's policies are. Instead they have listened to far-spun distortions leveraged by the leftist mainstream media. The idea Trump is a racist, a bigot or a misogynist is preposterous. A rich, privileged, brash playboy type surrounded by gold-diggers - sure. But beyond that there's not a shred of proof of any of the slander that has been thrown at him.

Where are all these women who accused him during the campaign, btw? Shouldn't it be a big thing that a man guilty of all these abuses against women is now the president elect? That shit seems to have fallen off the scope. I wonder why? Indeed several of the women have retracted their claims already, and it appears they aren't going to be prosecuted. Well they should be.

Trump is many things, some of them unpleasant. But only fools with an agenda or deep bitterness and resentment of the election result believe the bullshit hype being pushed by the now exposed and discredited mainstream media.

No, I'm saying if the public trusted the mainstream media, Trump wouldn't have won. It goes hand in hand with people mistrusting politicians and to the aftermath of 9/11.

Everything else you've posted is irrelevant. The point in bold shows you believe a lot of bullshit as well. Broad assumptions.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

You are spinning out of control.

Russia WAS NOT in Syria before the US went in.

Russia WAS NOT in Ukraine before the US went in.

Russia was not anywhere, except behind its own borders, before NATO was transformed from a cold war alliance against the Soviet Union into an expansionist vehicle for US and European interests.

I don't think you understand what the cold war was about, how it held the word back from open conflict and how spheres of influence kept the balance of power precariously level. The US has trampled all over that delicate balance and made the immediate concern one of conflict or the avoidance of conflict with Russia. This is way beyond the moral in and outs and meanderings designed to justify the US aggression and expansionism that is ratcheting up global tensions.

So Russia has never used Gazprom to assert an economic stranglehold over former satellite states

It didn't poison Viktor Yuschenko a candidate for the Ukranian presidency in 2004 because he stood on a platform of wanting closer ties with the West than with Moscow.

It didn't carry out an execution of one of it's former operatives Alexander Litvinenko on British soil?

And Russia/The Soviet Union has been involved in Syria since the 1960s since it supported the coup d'etat that brought Hafez Assad to power.

[Power n Glory]

That's the point, the more vitriolic Trump became the more negatively the mainstream media responded and the more justification Trump has for claiming institutional bias.

It wasn't about making people positive for change, it was about making people frightened of things staying the same.

Do think that was purposely done?

[Letters]

The video implies Putin as Farage's puppeteer and Farage as the little puppet sent to sit on Trump's knee. I explained earlier, providing the facts, how the whole Russia angle is mainstream propaganda and a cover-story and nothing more. Farage "cosying up to Trump" is no different to any other political likeminded figures. Bush and his poodle Blair, for example.

OK. Tbh I didn't notice it was Putin who carried Farage on stage

[Niall_Quinn]

That's the point, the more vitriolic Trump became the more negatively the mainstream media responded and the more justification Trump has for claiming institutional bias.

It wasn't about making people positive for change, it was about making people frightened of things staying the same.

That's the best I have ever seen. You should be a political strategist and Clinton could have done with you over the past year.