Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Trump in the UK


jerry1234
 Share

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, jerry1234 said:

Can you please give me a definition of fake news. That the person in power calls every news fake which does not suit him is nothing new. A lot of tyrants did that in teh past.

That being said, people forget that this is not your neighbor or some random perons who accuses media of being fake (if they were fake then there are laws in place on which you could sue them, well that doesn't happen because they are not fake but soemtiems opinionated, but  an enlightend adult shoudl be able to differentiate.)

 

It is any time you see Trump on the news, and his mouth is moving. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mr.United_Nations said:

Jerry so you want the media to tell lies and misinformation? The EU is corrupt, not supporting our freedom and wants to have a war

says who?  The EU was founded as a mean to stop the wars for once and all in Europe. It was founded as a reaction to WW2 (remember Chruchill?), The past 1500 years Europe was in constant war. The last 70 years she wasn't (except for smaller ones) thanks to the EU, Now if all go back to being small nations with the same mentality as the past 1500 years,  then I am afraid  Europe will rip herself apart. The bigger empires will control these small nations (basic strategy used by several empires- for example the Spanish to conquer the mexican native kingdom, or the Birish empire, or Rome) The EU is made up of politicians, who are elected by the people of each country. So, if the politicians of these countries are corrupt so is the EU. The EU is not some seperate entity which rules over all nations -.-. You also can elect the EU parliamant in  a seperate election.

So I don't know what people expect if the EU is abolished, could you please enlighten me, how do you expect your personal life and the life of others to change in case th EU is abolished. Maybe I can understand it then?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, jerry1234 said:

Can you please give me a definition of fake news. That the person in power calls every news fake which does not suit him is nothing new. A lot of tyrants did that in teh past.

That being said, people forget that this is not your neighbor or some random perons who accuses media of being fake (if they were fake then there are laws in place on which you could sue them, well that doesn't happen because they are not fake but soemtiems opinionated, but  an enlightend adult shoudl be able to differentiate.)

 

Fake sensationalised headlines spun to fit a driven news narrative, which is then passed off as true factual news. 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, jerry1234 said:

says who?  The EU was founded as a mean to stop the wars for once and all in Europe. It was founded as a reaction to WW2 (remember Chruchill?), The past 1500 years Europe was in constant war. The last 70 years she wasn't (except for smaller ones) thanks to the EU, Now if all go back to being small nations with the same mentality as the past 1500 years,  then I am afraid  Europe will rip herself apart. The bigger empires will control these small nations (basic strategy used by several empires- for example the Spanish to conquer the mexican native kingdom, or the Birish empire, or Rome) The EU is made up of politicians, who are elected by the people of each country. So, if the politicians of these countries are corrupt so is the EU. The EU is not some seperate entity which rules over all nations -.-. You also can elect the EU parliamant in  a seperate election.

So I don't know what people expect if the EU is abolished, could you please enlighten me, how do you expect your personal life and the life of others to change in case th EU is abolished. Maybe I can understand it then?

Exactly.

And it's not as if we don't know who was saying it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stevewinn said:

Fake news. Trump was right in his assessment. The UK will not be able to do a full trade deal with the USA if we follow Theresa May's white paper, whatever May said to him today is a lie, she speaks with forked tongue. As we're fully aware.

Theresa the liar May, out.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44821976

Looks like Trump believed her then.  He just did a 180 on his assessment.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Fake sensationalised headlines spun to fit a driven news narrative, which is then passed off as true factual news. 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunatly most people don't like news which are either written neutral or ike an acadamic text. They want some spice in it.

Also, you can have a story and put whatever fact you like into the center of attention, and this is most of the time either what the boss tells you or what brings the best sales. So, if the popluation is for example allready hate filleld or is interested in a certain topic (refugees for example) then most likly most news will try to built a connection to that topic or focus the whole text onto that topic. Thus, the media will on the one hand lean towards the population and at the same time serve as an instrument for the people in power. They are in between. - I also believe that they should  have some role as a neutral observer, which investigates and attemps to offer neutral information to the popluation, while also trying to remain as neutral as possible. But that is a complicated topic and I know that Trump definition on fake news differs form this, so I won't pursue this further.

Anway, all in all I think the media is partly biased but in my opnion it is not to the degree to call it fake.

The question is can the media nowadays survive if it is not spicy? I think a lot of repsonsibility also lies with the reader.

 

That said, I just read he let the queen waiting, he probably wanted to let her know that he is the most important person in the world, what manners.

Edited by jerry1234
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, jerry1234 said:

Unfortunatly most people don't like news which are either written neutral or ike an acadamic text. They want some spice in it.

Not true. You will find a lot of people like me who refuse to watch TV news. I don't need or want some talking heads interpreting what the facts are. All I want are the facts. I haven't watched TV news in years.

I get enough of that here. :P

Edited by Michelle
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jerry1234 said:

says who?  The EU was founded as a mean to stop the wars for once and all in Europe. It was founded as a reaction to WW2 (remember Chruchill?), The past 1500 years Europe was in constant war. The last 70 years she wasn't (except for smaller ones) thanks to the EU, Now if all go back to being small nations with the same mentality as the past 1500 years,  then I am afraid  Europe will rip herself apart. The bigger empires will control these small nations (basic strategy used by several empires- for example the Spanish to conquer the mexican native kingdom, or the Birish empire, or Rome) The EU is made up of politicians, who are elected by the people of each country. So, if the politicians of these countries are corrupt so is the EU. The EU is not some seperate entity which rules over all nations -.-. You also can elect the EU parliamant in  a seperate election.

So I don't know what people expect if the EU is abolished, could you please enlighten me, how do you expect your personal life and the life of others to change in case th EU is abolished. Maybe I can understand it then?

Always find it funny how peace is attributed to the EU. No standing army. Continent was in ruins no power financially able to start let alone fight another war, No mention of the millions of Allied troops who served In keeping the peace In the newly liberated countries of Europe which kept the peace and allowed the formation of the European coal and steel community. 

It's true the thinking of closely trading nations don't go to war with one anther, but the evolution from the ECSC into the EEC as a purely trading union is long gone, the introduction of single market and the signing of masstricht treaty 1993 has changed the whole complexity of what the EU is and was, the pooling of sovereignty for the greater good no longer rings to, unless people believe the nations of europe are not civil enough to be trusted not to go to war with one another. 

And as for prosperity, history clearly shows us when we (UK) joined the EEC our economy never got a boost, in fact what followed was a recession, knocking 4% off our GDP. The same when we prepared to join the Euro when we pegged our currency to the Deutsch mark via the ERM, what followed was economic crash. The formation of the single market 1993 never seen a boost to our economy. 

The EU itself attributes just 1% GDP growth over the time of membership. There as never been a single market established for benefit of the UK services sector in the same way a single market for goods and agriculture have been established and benefitted Germany & France. 

And now today we find ourselves handing over £19.2bn + £7bn in order to have a £90bn trade deficit. And that's before we talk about the areas of sovereignty we've handed over to the EU. 

If the EU had confidence in its political project the leaving of the UK would be assisted. With regret but goodwill. But the EU first and foremost thought is a policy of punishment in case of "pour encourager less autres" 

The EU can go on without the UK, in the same way the UK can and will go on without the EU, I'm sure the union of 27 will keep the peace. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jerry1234 said:

Unfortunatly most people don't like news which are either written neutral or ike an acadamic text. They want some spice in it.

Also, you can have a story and put whatever fact you like into the center of attention, and this is most of the time either what the boss tells you or what brings the best sales. So, if the popluation is for example allready hate filleld or is interested in a certain topic (refugees for example) then most likly most news will try to built a connection to that topic or focus the whole text onto that topic. Thus, the media will on the one hand lean towards the population and at the same time serve as an instrument for the people in power. They are in between. - I also believe that they should  have some role as a neutral observer, which investigates and attemps to offer neutral information to the popluation, while also trying to remain as neutral as possible. But that is a complicated topic and I know that Trump definition on fake news differs form this, so I won't pursue this further.

Anway, all in all I think the media is partly biased but in my opnion it is not to the degree to call it fake.

The question is can the media nowadays survive if it is not spicy? I think a lot of repsonsibility also lies with the reader.

 

That said, I just read he let the queen waiting, he probably wanted to let her know that he is the most important person in the world, what manners.

Just a case in point, the piece you've just read about President Trump having the Queen waiting. Did the news source give the reason why? Or did it leave it open ended for people to form their own opinion. IE: like you have - apparently to show he's the most important person in the world.

Fake news. At a guess it reported he kept the Queen waiting, but not the reason. Convenient. Poor reporting as usual. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Just a case in point, the piece you've just read about President Trump having the Queen waiting. Did the news source give the reason why? Or did it leave it open ended for people to form their own opinion. IE: like you have - apparently to show he's the most important person in the world.

Fake news. At a guess it reported he kept the Queen waiting, but not the reason. Convenient. Poor reporting as usual. 

 

So, what was the reason Trump kept the queen waiting? 

Is there a reason that doesn't involve ambulance that can be accepted as good one? 

 

Of course, we all know why he kept her waiting: Putin always leaves people wait for hours. It's how you remind the waiting party of their subordinate position. And of your catastrophic lack of manners too, of course.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

So, what was the reason Trump kept the queen waiting? 

Is there a reason that doesn't involve ambulance that can be accepted as good one? 

 

Of course, we all know why he kept her waiting: Putin always leaves people wait for hours. It's how you remind the waiting party of their subordinate position. And of your catastrophic lack of manners too, of course.  

We await the detail. But I see others have filled in the blanks. Just as the news outlet intended. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

We await the detail. But I see others have filled in the blanks. Just as the news outlet intended. 

Oh, please, like you didn't notice how prone to mimic dictators Trump is. After meeting that abomination of NK, he started combing over in even more unbelievable style, that sculpture on his head is now more square... which reminds me, at least he didn't ask the queen to sit more attentive in his presence... probably.   

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Oh, please, like you didn't notice how prone to mimic dictators Trump is. After meeting that abomination of NK, he started combing over in even more unbelievable style, that sculpture on his head is now more square... which reminds me, at least he didn't ask the queen to sit more attentive in his presence... probably.   

What news organisation are you referring to which states President Trump made the Queen wait? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

What news organisation are you referring to which states President Trump made the Queen wait? 

While waiting for guests Donald and Melania Trump to arrive at Windsor Castle today, Queen Elizabeth II was spotted checking her watch, like a very normal, probably hot (it was 80 degrees in Windsor today) human queen.

The Trumps were scheduled to meet with the Queen for tea this afternoon at Windsor Castle, but Her Majesty waited (in public and on live TV, no less) for more than 10 minutes. It's unclear whether the Queen was just early for the meet up or the Trumps were actually late, but people on Twitter certainly had feelings about the whole situation.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/queen-did-not-look-amused-174600911.html

:ph34r: From one of the more left leaning sites.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

What news organisation are you referring to which states President Trump made the Queen wait? 

Probably none of those you have approved for your use. Seriously, it's all over the net. Either everyone is lying, either it's now swept gently under the carpet so there's no scandal. I'd be fine with that, but if you insist... 

I just noticed the fact that Trump also blocked the queen at one point at least. Let me guess: photoshop! He didn't! She was already blocked when he came in!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

Just a case in point, the piece you've just read about President Trump having the Queen waiting. Did the news source give the reason why? Or did it leave it open ended for people to form their own opinion. IE: like you have - apparently to show he's the most important person in the world.

Fake news. At a guess it reported he kept the Queen waiting, but not the reason. Convenient. Poor reporting as usual. 

 

Well the reason almost never matters. E.g. when I come to late to my job, or when soemone comes too late to a business meeting with a client, it is always the fault of the person who comes to late. I do not see why there should be extra rules applyng to Trump in this area. The only exeption I can think of is "higher power" (sudden wars, nature catastrope) I don't see why he could not have planned better, assuming this incident was unintended.(Which itself as a president should not be. He should be aware of his actions and their consequences - so plan ahead.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Probably none of those you have approved for your use. Seriously, it's all over the net. Either everyone is lying, either it's now swept gently under the carpet so there's no scandal. I'd be fine with that, but if you insist... 

I just noticed the fact that Trump also blocked the queen at one point at least. Let me guess: photoshop! He didn't! She was already blocked when he came in!  

It's getting petty,

no official word from either party. No one knows if anyone was late or early, or even on time. All based on the Queen checking her watch. And as for blocking the queen, well funny how people have a axe to grind can pick up on the slightest of things and turn them into something. Fake news, or no news. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jerry1234 said:

Well the reason almost never matters. E.g. when I come to late to my job, or when soemone comes too late to a business meeting with a client, it is always the fault of the person who comes to late. I do not see why there should be extra rules applyng to Trump in this area. The only exeption I can think of is "higher power" (sudden wars, nature catastrope) I don't see why he could not have planned better, assuming this incident was unintended.(Which itself as a president should not be. He should be aware of his actions and their consequences - so plan ahead.)

So you don't know. All you know a media outlet told you Trump made the Queen wait.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

So you don't know. All you know a media outlet told you Trump made the Queen wait.

The media plants a seed and now the tongues are awagging.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

It's getting petty,

no official word from either party. No one knows if anyone was late or early, or even on time. All based on the Queen checking her watch. And as for blocking the queen, well funny how people have a axe to grind can pick up on the slightest of things and turn them into something. Fake news, or no news. 

It's cute in an archaic sort of way, that there's obvious effort to deny Trump's faux pas, probably to avoid any hint of embarrassment for the queen. I'd gladly play along, why not, it's that damn 'fake news' phrase you picked up from you-know-whom that makes me come back to insist on otherwise quite expected and thus not at all sensational behaviour of the dictator mimicker.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michelle said:

The media plants a seed and now the tongues are awagging.

It's funny how petty it can get, no journalist was privy to the time table. The Media had the same live feed we had, from the pictures they deduced that Trump made the Queen wait. (he might have been late) but then people start adding their own reasons why. Apparently to show he's the most important person in the world. And Helen somehow like she always does managed to squeeze putin into a reply. 

It's comedy gold. It's a good job the cameras weren't allowed inside for the tea. Trump might have picked up the wrong fork, or ate in the wrong order, picked the cup up wrong or something. Its pathetic. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, stevewinn said:

It's funny how petty it can get, no journalist was privy to the time table. The Media had the same live feed we had, from the pictures they deduced that Trump made the Queen wait. (he might have been late) but then people start adding their own reasons why. Apparently to show he's the most important person in the world. And Helen somehow like she always does managed to squeeze putin into a reply. 

It's comedy gold. It's a good job the cameras weren't allowed inside for the tea. Trump might have picked up the wrong fork, or ate in the wrong order, picked the cup up wrong or something. Its pathetic. 

I didn't squeeze Putin, he fell in on his own. 

And thanks for reminding me of Trump holding that bottle with both hands. Combined with his already proverbial lack of spatial orientation... there's a diagnosis behind that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

I didn't squeeze Putin, he fell in on his own. 

And thanks for reminding me of Trump holding that bottle with both hands. Combined with his already proverbial lack of spatial orientation... there's a diagnosis behind that.  

Fake news

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Michelle said:

The media plants a seed and now the tongues are awagging.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. :)

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stevewinn said:

Fake news

Real fools.

No, seriously, how can you use that pathetic 'fake news' term, not just because it's used by the actual spewers of the fakest news they (wrongly) see beneficial at the moment - and contradict them often within the same day - but also because it's stolen from actual Nazi vocabulary?

Didn't you hear by now it's 'Lügenpresse' translated? Was it that hard to coin a term of your own and not borrow from the actual freaking Nazis?   

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.