US Politics

[Teddy Eagle]

We all do!

We read their analyses. We evaluate the evidence they present. We determine whether their conclusions are valid or not. We build either trust or distrust.

When an analysis involves someone like Trump we balance that against the trust, or distrust, that they have established with us. Then we decide where the truth is.

If this was the Cup semi final then the fact checkers team are Palace and the Trump team are Villa. It’s no contest!

By the way Trump isn’t accountable. The SC ruling absolved him of accountability. He is also ignoring Court decisions.

The broadcasters in the USA are not out of control. They are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. Therein lies a little known but very great danger. Trump has appointed his own man to lead it and, of course, they are now politicising what they do and attacking coverage that is critical of Trump. Instead of protecting free speech they are trying to suppress it.

We do that and then stick with the permanent position that Trump is/was wrong.

 

[eaglesdare]

Imagine being critical of people who questioned fact checkers bias in the last couple of years. Then all of a sudden Trump gets in and then they themselves question fact checkers bias and telling us to do the same 🤣

 

[HKOwen]

Hamas suspected of manipulating Gaza death toll, research shows

Some 3,400 names were removed from the most recent death reports from the Strip, raising concerns of inflated figures by Hamas.

www.euronews.com

One for the BBC fact checkers, hang on, they just blindly put out whatever numbers they get from Hamas

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

We do that and then stick with the permanent position that Trump is/was wrong.

That’s the default position certainly but for very good reasons. Trump has a long and incontestable history which the fact checkers, alongside many others, routinely expose. It’s not even seriously denied, other by transparently stupid claims of “fake news” etc.

Those who try to defend Trump simply make themselves look ridiculous.

 

[Penge Eagle]

It's interesting how the leftists are very keen to talk about Trump on here. But are pretty quiet when it comes to Starmer's performance.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

That’s the default position certainly but for very good reasons. Trump has a long and incontestable history which the fact checkers, alongside many others, routinely expose. It’s not even seriously denied, other by transparently stupid claims of “fake news” etc.

Those who try to defend Trump simply make themselves look ridiculous.

It's not defending Trump to point out that fact checking and preconceptions are mutually exclusive.

 

[Eaglehamster]

It's interesting how the leftists are very keen to talk about Trump on here. But are pretty quiet when it comes to Starmer's performance.

I refer the Rt Hon gentleman to the the thread's name.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Imagine being critical of people who questioned fact checkers bias in the last couple of years. Then all of a sudden Trump gets in and then they themselves question fact checkers bias and telling us to do the same 🤣

Who on earth do you think is now suggesting there is any bias in the fact checking?

There’s enough of them to achieve a balanced opinion. Using common sense and past experience everyone with any degree of intelligence can sort the truth out.

That some want to believe something else, so choose to do so, is unfortunate but doesn’t change facts.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

It's not defending Trump to point out that fact checking and preconceptions are mutually exclusive.

Not totally.

If preconceptions are soundly based on experience then they are a reliable guide to whether what a fact checker reveals is true, if it follows the same trend

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Not totally.

If preconceptions are soundly based on experience then they are a reliable guide to whether what a fact checker reveals is true, if it follows the same trend

Good to know that the much vaunted objectivity is such a mutable concept.

 

[Eaglehamster]

Can we stop referring to anyone who opposes Trump as "Leftist". Or perhaps those supporting should be labelled "Fascist".

 

[Penge Eagle]

Can we stop referring to anyone who opposes Trump as "Leftist". Or perhaps those supporting should be labelled "Fascist".

1. Do you think the opposite to a leftist is a fascist?

2. Why would someone on the right oppose a conservative president?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Good to know that the much vaunted objectivity is such a mutable concept.

That’s because it’s not mutable!

It’s perfectly objective to use past experience in making any assessment. We do it every day. Keeping an open mind doesn’t mean you just disregard what you already know. You learn to trust and distrust.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

That’s because it’s not mutable!

It’s perfectly objective to use past experience in making any assessment. We do it every day. Keeping an open mind doesn’t mean you just disregard what you already know. You learn to trust and distrust.

Basing your opinion of facts on prior prejudice is the epitome of subjectivity.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

That doesn't require an act of Parliament, a change of educational policy and convincing millions of religious adherents to change their mindset?

If the majority, who are now non believers, want it enough and can see it as a way to reduce differences then getting the law changed isn’t impossible.

There is no suggestion that millions of religious adherents need to change anything. They, like the rest of us, live in a democracy. They can continue to believe and make whatever arguments they want.

It won’t happen in my lifetime but I think eventually it will, because it must.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Basing your opinion of facts on prior prejudice is the epitome of subjectivity.

There is a huge difference between prejudice and past experience.

Prejudice is preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience. It’s an emotional response that results in bias.

Past experience is the knowledge gained from real events.

 

[cryrst]

If the majority, who are now non believers, want it enough and can see it as a way to reduce differences then getting the law changed isn’t impossible.

There is no suggestion that millions of religious adherents need to change anything. They, like the rest of us, live in a democracy. They can continue to believe and make whatever arguments they want.

It won’t happen in my lifetime but I think eventually it will, because it must.

And as a palace site I am a believer COYP
Sorry couldn’t resist 😀

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

From my experience watching the media, I would class Boris Johnson as a liar and a cheat.
From my experience of watching Donald Trump in the media, I would probably think of him as a highly-principled person of outstanding integrity.
Both are right-of-centre in their political fields, but perceptions can only be constructed via the media you happen to choose to view.

I have also watched many short-films of Stormy Daniels to further my political research

 

[Teddy Eagle]

If the majority, who are now non believers, want it enough and can see it as a way to reduce differences then getting the law changed isn’t impossible.

There is no suggestion that millions of religious adherents need to change anything. They, like the rest of us, live in a democracy. They can continue to believe and make whatever arguments they want.

It won’t happen in my lifetime but I think eventually it will, because it must.

OK, hope springs eternal. Can't say I've noticed much improvement in the last few decades but you never know.

 

[Eaglehamster]

1. Do you think the opposite to a leftist is a fascist?

2. Why would someone on the right oppose a conservative president?

1/ Could be.
2/ Because it's Trump.