Here’s a video [h/t Is the BBC biased?] that talks truth to Power [the power that is the massive domination of the Left in the Media, academia, commentary and those who use ‘shaming’ tactics to try and silence opposition]
One quibble…he says that debate will win the Left the argument…..he presupposes that the Left’s argument is the correct one and it only needs to be articulated for the ignorant masses to see the light…which brings us back to where we started.
Here’s another video on the same subject….
Here is the foaming mouthed, swivel-eyed no-policys Trump in action….he has repeatedly performed such moderate and indepth presentations and yet to hear the BBC you’d think all he did was spout racist, sexist mad comments…
Is he a misogynist? No, he doesn’t hate women…the opposite would seem to be the problem.
Were his comments about Mexicans and Muslims racist? No. His comments about Mexican immigrants were badly phrased in that they seemed to say all Mexicans immigrants were rapists, clearly not his view, but was he actually talking about ‘Mexicans’ or about illegal immigrants…who just happened to be mostly Mexican? If they were Canadian he would have said exactly the same.
As for Muslims, well firstly Muslims are not a race, second he was not suggesting banning Muslims from entering the US just on the basis they were Muslim…he does not hate Muslims…it was a reasoned response to Muslim terrorism within the US….he wanted a temporary ban on Muslims entering the US until the US developed an effective way of determining which Muslims might be a threat to the country once they were there. If it had been people with red hair blowing up things in America he would have said the same about people with red hair. Not all Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists right now are Muslim…hence the profiling.
The BBC has consistently ignored the nuances and intentions behind his comments and instead loudly declared Trump to be a racist and Islamophobe…..studiously ignoring Clinton’s close links to Saudi Arabia despite the BBC relentlessy attacking Saudi Arabia over the war in Yemen whilst at the same time dodging comment on Saudia Arabia’s well documented funding of Islamic fundamentalists around the world [including its massive presence and malign influence in the UK] and funding of ISIS.
A distinct lack of informative debate from the BBC…just a day-in, day-out tirade of anti-Trump bile….though apparently the BBC denies it completely despite the evidence being glaringly obvious and abundant.
He can’t win with the BBC can he.
They criticised him for everything, real and made up.
They criticised all his policies.
Now, when he appears to be softening on some minor points they criticise him for doing what they want, calling it backsliding.
Somebody should start an unbiased news channel. The BBC and Sky are causing damage to our relationship with the USA.
All we want is the truth and not the far left doctored and manipulated news we suffer from the far left BBC and Sky.
Trump should start a news channel.
ITV are as bad, EG. The day after the Trump victory they were there reporting on ‘the backlash’ which in effect was few a hundred Snowflakes crying in frustration and stamping their feet because they didn’t get their way, mixed in with a gang of the usual fire-starting black victimhood activists.
They then went on to show us the post-it note ‘messages of love’ they’d been sticking to the walls of a New York subway.
No sign of a Trump voter anywhere in the piece, it was all about the grieving of the spoilt brat generation.
And they pretend this is serious and balanced coverage of the biggest political event of the year.
He’s refusing to take the Presidential salary.
I wonder how the’ll spin that?
I was surprised to hear that his salary (if he had taken it) is less than half what the BBC pay their news(sic) readers.
They don’t even need auto-cues at the moment, they just sit there blubbering and shouting “RACIST NAZI FASCIST BIGOT MISOGYNIST XENOPHOBIC DIVISIVE”
Mice Height
You forgot Islamophobe.
“The religion of Islam above all others was founded upon the sword … Moreover it provides incentives to slaughter, and in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men – filled with a wild and merciless fanaticism.”
Churchill.
Its only this generation of uneducated university graduates, ignorant of historic record of Islam, that is capable of such stunning stupidity. Churchill would be aghast that he defeated the Nazis, only for this present bunch of politicians letting in an enemy, that makes Nazis look like liberals. If Islam takes hold in Britain, and that is likely in less then 50 years, Western civilisation will be wiped out. Destroyed at the atomic level. That wouldn’t happen if the Nazis were ruling us, as Western music and other cultural mores would continue. In time the Nazis would have died out. But with Islam, its a one way one time deal.
An interview with Donald Trump
The man himself – rather than “what we said he said“……
Actually a bit of a novelty at the moment – as most of the visitors here know only too well…
Trump is going to have his revenge on the media. Breitbart and Infowars have been behind Trump all the way and called the result correctly. Trump will be giving Whitehouse interviews to these media outlets, and channels like CNN will not be getting the news first. This will propel Breitbart and Infowars into mainstream news outlets.
Oh, revenge is so sweet!
He might be wise to limit his affiliation with Infowars. Entertaining (and often accurate) as their output is, they still believe 9/11 was an inside job despite knowing that Islamic terrorism exists. Alex Jones is somewhat gullible and believes every conspiracy theory he hears, though of course the upside to this is that a lot of true stories get promoted that wouldn’t do otherwise, like the power vacuum and ISIS takeover in Libya after Ghadaffi was overthrown which went unreported in the mainstream media for over a year.
Breitbart is a more credible source, they check the stories before running with them and know how to separate news from opinion. Hence why the MSM and political establishment has been so desperate to discredit them as racists and anti-semites because of the actions of a few of its readers.
Yes you are probably right, I think Paul Joseph Watson is a good contributor to Infowars, Alex Jones has an annoying gravelly voice and interrupts people at any given time on a regular basis.
One quibble…he says that debate will win the Left the argument…..he presupposes that the Left’s argument is the correct one and it only needs to be articulated for the ignorant masses to see the light…which brings us back to where we started.
Exactly. They are unable to win through debate which is why they resorted to ‘playing the man’ (‘White racists!’ Islamophobes!’ Homophobes!’ etc etc) and free-speech-killing PC straitjacketing tactics in the first place.
They just don’t understand that the majority have rejected their open borders, internationalist, multicultural, ‘social justice’ (i.e. re-distributionist), anti-capitalist, eco-socialist, authoritarian (EU), Islam-appeasing, anti-Western culture, ‘catastrophic climate change’ etc. agenda outright and no amount of hearing the same old clapped out mantras won’t change people’s opinions one tiny bit.
Doh!
johnnythefish
Great post.
It would totally destroy a Leftist’s entire worldview if they were to admit that anyone disagreeing with them was doing so from an intelligent, well-meaning perspective.
They have to retain (against all the evidence) their unearned feelings of moral and intellectual superiority and a crucial component of that, usually the only component of it, is name-calling. Because the mere existence of opposition to their views is an existential threat to their well-being, so emotionally stunted are they. Their hate is real.
I think they are wrong and misguided.
They think I am wrong and evil, bigoted, stupid,racist, ‘denier’, whatever label broadly fits the debate.
Our best weapon is always ridicule.
I notice that the BBC is now propagating the myth that Clinton won the popular vote and thus is the real president, showing both complete ignorance of how and why the electoral college is used and deliberately ignoring the fact that having more votes counted is not the same as having more votes cast. Clinton may well end up officially having more votes but that’s only because states stop counting votes once the projected result would no longer be effected by the remaining uncounted votes. That’s not even mentioning the uncounted absentee ballots, two thirds of which are usually Republican votes.
As was the case with Brexit, the left thinks it can change the rules after the fact because they were never taught how to lose, or even that losing is both inevitable and entirely ok. However, whereas the referendum was a relatively new and unpractised thing where the ambiguity of its legality could conceivably trick and mislead people into thinking the result wasn’t genuine, the protests against Trump’s win and pathetically misguided attempts to convince the electoral college to vote for Clinton is the attempt to reverse well over 200 years of political precedent. That they have the gall to claim that they’re trying to protect America and its democratic values is the icing on the cake.
It doesn’t matter anyway, as even if the college was stupid or weak enough to betray the electorate (and there’s no evidence to suggest that they are), the final decision would go to the Republican-dominated House of Representatives anyway. That’s ignoring the fact that Clinton didn’t ‘win’ the popular vote anyway, because she still had a plural minority, meaning it would go to a run-off as is the case with France. As one commenter hilariously put it, there’s more chance of Clinton getting into Heaven than into the White House.
But of course, things like facts and sense don’t deter liberals these days.
If the number of votes counts then I fully expect the BBC to take up the UKIP vote numbers which resulted in 1 mp.
Or are the BBC picking and choosing only the bits that suit their far left politics.
An excellent point!
The current rules in soccer have it that it’s the team who scores the most goals that wins – not the one with the most free kicks.
The Clinton campaign, backed by a one-sided and compliant media, clearly had an abundance of free kicks (and free-passes) but Trump netted the most goals and consequently took the honours.
£4B a year and the BBC didn’t even understand the rules under which the US election was running seems somewhat careless to me unless they’re simply bad losers and want to move the goalposts after the game has finished.
On reflection this latter case cannot be true as no impartial, publically-funded organisation could prefer any particular side to win, could it?
I’m not sure what’s worse – a stupid BBC or a biased BBC – unless, and horror of horrors, both a biased AND stupid BBC!
If Hillary had won the election, can you imagine the play-to pay-cash the Clintons would have made.
Wait to the end (it’s all good).
Seems the peroxide sink had a special connection button like the ones the BBC use when Nigel is taking the interviewer apart.
https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2016/11/muslim-cnn-host-explanation-trump/
Calm,rational, intelligent….NOT the kind of Muslim appreciated by the Media.
“Oh dear, must be a bad Skype connection….” Yeh right, did you see the exasperated look on her face as the muslim woman calmly and with easy articulation answered all her points….she (the interviewer) could not take any more.
Text book stuff. From a very dubious, well thumbed BBC tome.
Notice how the explanation for the loss of the link comes immediately after the woman is cut off, not even a split second of confusion about what had happened to her connection. When a link is accidentally or unintentionally broken there is usually, as happens when you lose somebody on the phone, a short period of confusion about what has just happened before the fact sinks in.
The immediate explanation given by the interviewer has the stench of her being forewarned by her editor over her earwig that, Her link will be cut off in five, four, three, two, one, go with the explanation.
The bBBC have such experience at playing that game that they at least have the expertise to pretend at being confused with the sudden loss. The other trick they use, especially with Phone In programmes, in order to give a thin veneer of being unbiased, is to put any dissenting voices on in the last few seconds before a break so they can be cut off with the excuse that either the programme is ending, they must break for the News or they must move on to the next item before Running Out of Time.
My only surprise is that CNN, who are normally quite polished, did not have the sense to use those tricks more skillfully, after all that cannot be the first time they have ‘Lost’ an Inconvenient Truth’ interviewee by ‘Accidentally’ losing a link.
Yes you are right there as on Friday (At least I think it was Friday) Nikki Campbell cut off a guy who was non lefty with the excuse that a cricket score update was due. This was 6 mins before the end of the program when this cricket info would have been broadcast anyway.
A FB friend wrote the following:
Dear Democrats and Liberals,
I’m noticing that a lot of you aren’t graciously accepting the fact that your candidate lost. In fact you seem to be posting even more hateful things about those of us who voted for Trump.
Some of you are apparently “triggered”. Because you are posting how “sick” you feel about the results.
How did this happen you ask.
You created “us” when you attacked our freedom of speech….
You created “us” when you attacked our right to bear arms.
You created “us” when you attacked our Christian beliefs.
You created “us” when you constantly referred to us as racists.
You created “us” when you constantly called us xenophobic.
You created “us” when you told us to get on board or get out of the way.
You created “us” when you forced us to buy health care and then financially penalized us for not participating.
You created “us” when you allowed our jobs to continue to leave our country.
You created “us” when you attacked our flag.
You created “us” when you confused women’s rights with feminism.
You created “us” when you began to immasculate men.
You created “us” when you decided to make our children soft.
You created “us” when you decided to vote for progressive ideals.
You created “us” when you attacked our way of life.
You created “us” when you decided to let our government get out of control.
“You” created “us” the silent majority.
And we became fed up and we pushed back and spoke up.
And we did it with ballots, not civil unrest like bullets or setting Stores , homes & Cars on fire, rocks were thrown and people otherwise acted like a bunch of animals.
All some Democrats know how to do is riot and cause destruction when they don’t get their way. Protests and violence are common in Third World countries after elections, but this is the United States of America, and we’re not supposed to do this sort of garbage. In America, after you lose an election to the opposing candidate, you’re supposed accept it and move on.
I think that that posting is the so-called liberal left to a “T”
Just change ” Dear Democrats and Liberals,” to BBC ,Guardian,T Bliar and MSM
http://time.com/4565025/future-historians-election-week/
How Historians of Tomorrow Will Interpret Trump’s Election
If anyone’s qualified to read the future it must surely be TIME. How long to the BBC getting its ouija board out too?
To my mind they are not experts. Like so many experts on Brexit they have incredible difficulty in divorcing their personal opinion from their supposed “expertise”.
I wonder what these experts thought when the great (as he turned out to be) Ronald Reagan won. Probably little different to what they have written here.
From climate science to legal rulings, much remains open to human interpretation that these days can too often be decided not by skill, rationality and integrity, but altogether less savoury ‘talents’.
Second guessing the future is up there with an IMF economic forecast or a Met Office Xmas forecast.
Then again, such as TIME likely knows what historians it likes will say, having told them.
Risking a trio post, Twitter today is a rich seam…
And, of course, Newsnight, which seldom fails to entertain in who it invites on and what they get to say before they run out of time. Again…
Please excuse my ignorance, but I saw the programme last night and I haven’t the first idea who the woman is. Would someone please enlighten me – and also what relevance she has to the Presidential election .
Correction to my post above, I have just looked her up on Wiki. Looks like it’s a case of box-ticking par excellence!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimamanda_Ngozi_Adichie
She is black, left wing and anti white…what more do you need to know ?
If John Bird and Camile Batguanocrazy had home schooled one of our girls brought home,, a more perfect Newnight pundit would be hard find.
Even a touch of Aunty Di eye rolling and drawl in the mix too.
She will go far.
She was awful wasn’t she, she mentioned a “system of oppression” which I took to mean the USA, possibly the west in general.
Unfortunately such is the fear of having the race card played against one that the obvious wasn’t pointed out to her, namely that the USA has just had 8 years with a black POTUS, and further afield there are several independent black majority, black led nations in Africa and the Caribbean that would very likely welcome with open arms a strong black woman of her obvious eminence.
“She will go far”……..perhaps she should.
What The General is saying is that she is a Rampant Racist Bigot. But I suppose, as a white male, I am not supposed to have the right to make that assessment.
You can’t define racism with your head up your ass staring at brown stuff all day.
And as for Gary I’ve started the hashtag #StopFundingObesity
For Gary, we need the kids in the Walkers adds to keep him in the folded up bed, tape up his Twitter fingers and wheel him into the corridor so no one can hear him.
“I am sorry but if you are a white man you don’t get to define what racism is”
No?
Look, if I’m walking or driving down the street and I’m singled out for attack by a group of black men with clubs or guns, YES I BLOODY WELL DO!
If a female member of my family is singled out for a sexual attack by a group of “asians”, YES I BLOODY WELL DO!
Do you understand, you racist bigot, whoever you are?
(And lose the smirk.)
After Trump won, the bBC interviewed Muslims in the US, in which to report on how scared they are:
The above video shows Zaina Choudry of US Islamic pressure group CAIR . meanwhile on the West coast on hearing of the Trump win, Hussam Ayloush of the LA chapter of CAIR decided to tweet this:
What he is saying is for Islam to overthrow the government.
Increase in hate crimes my arse.
“Muslims are feeling more vulnerable”, it’s not Mulims who have been the victims of terrorist attacks in the USA and Europe.
One thing about this anti-Trump hate, now that he has become the President-Elect these Progressive cretins need to be careful about what they put online about Trump; I heard of some crank who posted something about killing Donald Trump: two hours later Secret Service agents turned up at his house.
They don’t turn up at your house if you are a lefty hate filled Guardian writer, who then closes her Twitter account.
http://order-order.com/2016/11/11/guardian-journalist-tweet-presidential-assassination-call-deletes-account/
you can’t always get what you want https://www.facebook.com/www.JOE.co.uk/videos/774886846008717/
Whilst idly waiting for my hair to be cut at my local Barbers this morning I picked up The Sun newspaper. As i thumbed through each page, my eyes eventually landed on the page which adorns the views and thoughts of friend to the Obama’s and American Political expert Lorraine Kelly. Previously i’d always thought that she was an average, at best, journalist who got lucky in an interview and landed a part on an ITV breakfast show, before landing her own morning show.
Anyway this is what she had to say:
LORRAINE KELLY America’s new First Family the Trumps will always be second best to the dignified Obamas
President-elect Donald Trump’s huge clan are a far cry from the sophistication of the White House’s current residents
BY LORRAINE KELLY, SUN COLUMNIST
12th November 2016, 2:36 am
“THAT line-up of the new “First Family” on stage with Donald Trump as he made his acceptance speech put me in mind of the cast of a particularly downmarket reality show.
Or maybe one of those cheap US daytime soap operas.
There they all were. The blonde, tousle-haired, over-made-up women with improbable names including Melania, Tiffany and Ivanka and the blokes all chisel-jawed, sharp-suited and gormless.
All we needed was a fist fight and a DNA test.
What a contrast to the Obamas, who have occupied the White House with dignity, intelligence, warmth and grace.
There hasn’t been a breath of scandal about them and no dirty little sexual or financial secrets in the Oval Office waiting to be uncovered.
Eldest daughter Malia might have rolled her eyes once during one of her dad’s extra-long speeches, but that’s about as bad as it ever got.
Both girls are a credit to their parents, and in an era where politicians are loathed and reviled, the incorruptible conduct of President Obama is all the more remarkable.
As First Lady, Michelle will be an impossibly tough act to follow. She’s bright, beautiful, compassionate and has a wicked sense of humour. She tried her best to make America happier and has never put a foot wrong.
She recognised the importance of dressing properly and not once made a single fashion faux pas, whether it was meeting the Queen in a Tom Ford gown or playing rough and tumble with kids in the Rose Garden wearing High Street jeans and a sweater.
Her speeches in support of Hillary Clinton were inspirational and the way she made mincemeat of Trump and completely deflated the old windbag made you long for Michelle herself to have been the Democrat candidate.
What a President she would have made.
“First Lady-in-Waiting” Melania is a stunningly beautiful and well-educated woman who speaks six languages, but she comes across as cold.
Maybe it’s because English isn’t her mother tongue and possibly her ex-model looks and figure are intimidating, but she’s not what you could call a woman’s woman.
Her choice of white and cream couture only adds to the aloof, Snow Queen image.
Melania’s speeches were stilted and robotic, although with better writers and more practise that can surely only improve.
She really needs to quickly adopt a cause in the way that Nancy Reagan tried to stamp out drug abuse, or Betty Ford pioneered treatment for alcoholics and better understanding of mental health issues.
The First Lady has enormous privilege and a massive platform to do good and make a difference, but Melania’s efforts to have her voice heard during the campaign were not altogether successful.
Her early efforts to stop cyber bullying were mocked because her boorish husband was effectively using social media to behave like a bumptious bully himself.
She needs to find her niche.
Perhaps, like Jackie Kennedy, she will want to redecorate the White House, although hopefully not in the rather vulgar style of Trump’s hotels and offices.
What she absolutely must not be is mere arm-candy for her charmless husband.
Women such as Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama have set the bar very high and we need much more from the First Lady than recipes for cookies and flower arranging.
The eyes of the world are on Trump and his family, mostly with fear and foreboding.
But we need to at least give them a chance to step up the job and try to heal the dis-United States of America.
I don’t think Trump will get through his first year without making at least one colossal and possibly impeachable error.
The one bright spot is that perhaps Michelle Obama could be persuaded to run in four years (or less) to bring back some dignity to the office of President and break through that glass ceiling once and for all.
In the meantime, Melania has a lot to live up to.”
Maybe in four years time Lorraine could offer to do the ironing for Michelle and listen intently as Michelle tells her about the eight years spent in the White House and how fun it was as there was a complete lack of any scandal and how there was no dirty little sexual or financial secrets. Lorraine could engage her with that sincere smile and regale Michelle with “brilliant” and “really”.
Our Lol is quite the essayist.
The notion of a FLOTUS to POTUS Punt has been flo-Ted, but entitled dynastic politics has kind of taken a hit of late. And that experience of planting the garden really puts a business career to shame running a country.
Speaking of which, back in the day, I wonder what the Lols were gushing about Jack and Jackie then, versus what historians, and interns, have brought to public attention now.
“There hasn’t been a breath of scandal REPORTED about them” would be more accurate.
He is a product of the corrupt Chicago Democratic Party “machine”; he attended a black church whose preacher was an anti-White racist; he was associated with terrorist Bill Ayers; he was editor of the Harvard Law Review yet was the first editor in its history to never publish an article of his own within its pages and never produced irreproachable proof that he was, in fact, actually born in the United States.
“Eldest daughter Malia might have rolled her eyes once during one of her dad’s extra-long speeches, but that’s about as bad as it ever got” . . . . . . . . . . apart from the dope smoking and arse flashing.
But that’s how the Soviet Union collapsed, Glasnost: Gorbachev exploiting the Orwellian conclusion that the propaganda was truth, not propaganda. Therefore the idea was pushed by the politburo that Communism would win the debate through openness rather than censorship. For Communists to have doubt about this decision was seen as having doubts about Communism itself.
So the BBC would collapse if it ended its Censorship Policy: Lord Hall exploiting his Orwellian conclusion that the propaganda was truth, not propaganda. Therefore the idea will be pushed by Lord Hall that Anti-Tory/Anti-Brexit/Anti-Trump would win the debate through openness rather than censorship. For the BBC to have doubt about this decision would be seen as having doubts about the BBC’s impartiality, itself.
What he actually did say ‘from the horse’s mouth’ ?
The media edited part not often told
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/dec/08/donald-trump-calls-for-complete-ban-on-muslims-entering-the-us-video
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States ………
The bit the Libtards always leave out is ….”until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”
Never ending propaganda.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/10/muslim-ban-statement-removed-from-donald-trumps-website/
People vs bbc – This bout features the legend that is “Tiberius Quade” and the bbc’s Nicky A. A. Campbell – A whingey, whiney, racist (anti-English), regressive-lefty, type known for his manliness.
Helo this is my first comment I hope it’s ok and stuff – Alice from London
Good link – and welcome!
Interesting to hear Campbell’s exasperated huffing and puffing in the background as Tiberius eloquently tears him a new one.
I am so glad that someone posted this I heard this on the radio to work and noticed that to kill the conversation they went to breaking news at the cricket which was that india were 17 for no wicket then came back and talked about womens right totally ignoring what had been said before.Then at the end of the show nicky said he was going to go for a coffee with Tiberius.The BBC still the enemy in our mist.
Isn’t upsetting all the right people absolutely fantastic?
The liberal left have said that, although he won the Electoral College vote, he did not win the popular vote. However, it appears that he DID win the popular vote (albeit only just):
https://70news.wordpress.com/2016/11/12/final-election-2016-numbers-trump-won-both-popular-62-9-m-62-7-m-and-electoral-college-vote-306-232-hey-change-org-scrap-your-loony-petition-now/
#PopularVote: #Trump: 62,972,226 #Clinton: 62,277,750
#ElectoralCollege vote #Trump 306 #Clinton 232
Milo on terrific form, predicts a Trump victory the day before the election, or at least understands why it could happen.