silvertop
Member
- Location
- Portishead
- Country
England
I looked at the clip.
One fact error.
Otherwise, all political flannel.
No statement made knowing it to be false. Tat is what lying actually is.
This word "lie" is bandied about on here with liberal application to smear political characters who one opposes. Thus Leavitt. I don't know why Trump has to pick Southern Belle, ex beauty pageant Barbie dolls to be his spokespeople. Probably why US TV channels pick women of similar type to read the news and do the weather. Sadly I suspect in both cases it is cosmetic presentation over any positive discrimination of type caste women. Anyhow, she is bright, engaging but has to dodge impossible questions created by the irrational ramblings of that man. The only lie I saw was the presenter saying she lies.
Similarly Starmer. He seems to be well thought of overseas, but at home his popularity is in the toilet. Despite the long list of points (good or bad but always highly selective and inflated) those on here copy and paste from the Express or GB News etc., this is because the Tories (especially the last term) stuffed the economy and left us all feeling broke and in a broken country. Labour came in a with a promise to put money in our pockets and make us feel good again. So far they have failed; and it seems unlikely they will succeed within this term. That's why he is unpopular.
So why does every other anti Starmer post on here talk about him lying and not a word from his mouth being true? No charisma, no feel of strong leadership, poor stewardship of the public purse etc., all valid points. But a liar? I don't see it.
I feel many are unhappy and venting. Adding dishonesty feels cathartic through emotional release. Like swearing or a really good sneeze. But when it comes down to it, given all the failings he has, is it even necessary?
