Sorry. - I have no idea what you’re talking about
Printable View
Blame blame blame. Why doesn't he give examples? I've said the media aren't perfect but this just tars everyone with the same brush. Surely, if you're addressing divides you have to be more diplomatic? But no: "fake news", "enemy of the people." And no 'leftist filter' either, just straight from the horse's mouth.
The way I read it, he is saying you have some news organisations who partake in fake news, and some who don't. So he is saying those who do should cut it out. He is not blaming all news outlets, only those who play fast and loose with the truth, or something like that.
Not sure about the comment from bluematt that trump is "one of them" unless it's common for parents to give their children hundreds of millions of dollars.
He has never lived like common people.
The US media is currently running the story about trump saying he can change the Constitution to end birthright. He can't but the media aren't running the story as "Trump lies to stoke up immigration fear before the election" so I guess you can argue that they are fake news.
If they were more honest, they would be reporting him as lying rather than using phrases like "didn't provide evidence to support his claim". He should be thanking them.
Sorry can’t resist....😂
https://youtu.be/yuTMWgOduFM
Because he's a City fan, I also don't know as much about him as I do about Trump - this is a fairly minor thing, but it says so much about the sort of person Trump is;-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avkkdrjDsTA-
Huh?
"During the general election, Americans go to their polling place to cast their vote for president. But the tally of those votes — the popular vote — does not determine the winner. Instead, presidential elections use the Electoral College. To win the election, a candidate must receive a majority of electoral votes."
I know it doesn't, but it hardly strikes me as a great example of democracy in action when you can get anomalies like that - I'd say exactly the same thing if Clinton was now President with the election having gone the same way but with it being Trump who got three million more votes.
There's a more recent example than that. In February 1974, the Conservatives had more votes than Labour, yet Harold Wilson became Prime Minister. That was the first election I voted in and I was pleased that the party I voted for won, but I've always thought it's unfair that the party or person that gets the most votes does not always end up the winners, so, to answer your question, yes I do.
I would have thought your painstaking research would have shown you that I said on here on a few occasions that it was almost a toss of a coin job for me in the Referendum - I voted remain, but not with any enthusiasm. As for not accepting the result, my attitude straight after the vote was that the country has decided, so let's get on with it. Little did I think that in the two and a quarter years following the vote the leaving process would prove to be so tortuous with the party which brought in the five year fixed term regulation for Governments calling a totally pointless election which wasted a good portion of that time and only damaged themselves. This gave a clue as to the political nous and competence of this Government and a straight yes or no vote has been taken as being a justification for the sort of Brexit wanted by the like of Rees-Mogg, Fox, Johnson and Farage - the goalposts have been moved an awful long way since June 2016.