I wouldn't just stop buying chinese phones. I'd stop buying anything Chinese.
I wouldn't just stop buying anything chinese but thinking about anything chinese Prawn crackers The great wall of China Chairman Meo Fireworks One of our Dinosaurs is Missing
Most amusing.. but i bet lots of people will stop subconsciously or not. I loathe Chinese food anyway so thats no hardship!
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Evidence? Trump won more electoral college votes than any Republican since Bush Snr in 1988 in 2016, Biden is currently polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton
Can the PB arbiters of what is and isn't reliable media (Guido - yeah!) confirm if there has been a concerted effort to astroturf the government view, just so we poor schmucks don't have to rely on these dodgy types?
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Which does rather beg the question of why they are the ones on the tickets.
That's easy. The Republican establishment would rather have an electoral hammering this year, than ignite a civil war that lasted a decade.
While the Democrats had a very odd Primary season where Iowa almost didn't happen, and then plausible five moderates got crowded out by a former Republican mayor.
Bloomberg's contribution to the process was spectacularly negative. I see all talk of him running as an independent has been quietly binned.
If I was wondering who the 5% chance was of someone else (other than a medical replacement) the only one I see that would instantly have the credibility would be Bill Gates. And I can't see him being willing to take it on.
There are a whole bunch of interesting "what ifs" in this Democratic Primary season...
- what if Biden had decided not to run?
- what if Bernie Sanders hadn't bounced back from his heart attack quickly, and Ms Warren was the sole candidate on the left of the party?
- what if Iowa had gone smoothly, and Buttigieg had gotten the traditional bounce?
- what Bloomberg had decided not to run?
- what if Klobuchar had not had the great debate performance in New Hampshire that catapulted her into third?
If Biden hadn't run, maybe Sherrod Brown would have done. If Warren was the only representative of the left, she might have ended up the nominee. If Iowa had gone smoothly, then maybe Buttigieg would have won New Hampshire and the Democratic establishment would have rallied around him.
And that's the nature of gambling and probability. There are lots of little things that could have had big impacts.
What if I had laid off my massive green on My Girl The Big Liz when she went odds on. Like a sensible person would have
Contemplating a new future. What are going to be the really big changes? Travel and tourism is surely going to be one of them. As a next exporter of tourists, that could be of benefit to the UK. We should also be able to create jobs in the health and care sectors, while there will need to be domestic manufacturing of PPE, so that will be good, too. On top of that, our digital economy could be a significant beneficiary. Where else can we win?
New services in public hygiene in the course of our normal work, shopping and social activities. Britain, for all the whining and self-bashing on this site, has an excellent reputation in this field.
PS what I mean is consulting and certification that work practices and facilities are hygienic with regards to infectious diseases, as are transport, hotel rooms, and so on.
People looking after family members instead of sending them to die in care homes.
Easier said than done. Having an aged but otherwise reasonably functional parent come to live with you, if you're lucky enough to have space for them to live in to begin with, is one thing. Devoting your entire life - giving up work, scraping by on minimal benefits - to the backbreaking toil of, for example, washing, feeding and wiping the bottom of a severely demented aged parent (who may also be uncommunicative and violent) is quite another.
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Which does rather beg the question of why they are the ones on the tickets.
That's easy. The Republican establishment would rather have an electoral hammering this year, than ignite a civil war that lasted a decade.
While the Democrats had a very odd Primary season where Iowa almost didn't happen, and then plausible five moderates got crowded out by a former Republican mayor.
Bloomberg's contribution to the process was spectacularly negative. I see all talk of him running as an independent has been quietly binned.
If I was wondering who the 5% chance was of someone else (other than a medical replacement) the only one I see that would instantly have the credibility would be Bill Gates. And I can't see him being willing to take it on.
Do you really think Bill Gates has more appeal to the white working class in the rustbelt and the black vote the Democrats must turn out to beat Trump than Biden?
White working class I would say yes. Black I don't know. But he would also appeal to a lot of Republicans weary of the chaos, the incoherence, the stupidity and the vulgarity.
We've reached the Freedom Fries stage. Good to have the marker.
As always, amazing how blind people are to their own prejudices.
"I'd stop buyng anything Jewish" would (presumably) ring an alarm bell even in the thickest of skulls.
"I'd stop buying anything Chinese/Muslim/[fill in your own 'acceptable' target]" will no doubt be vehemently defended, as "not the same thing at all."
I think the West has moved from ignoring China to being outraged by it. It would be in our self interest to put some effort into understanding it, I think. What's China trying to achieve, how, what do we want to get out of that relationship, when will we try to work around China? China is going to be a powerful presence in the world from now on.
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Which does rather beg the question of why they are the ones on the tickets.
That's easy. The Republican establishment would rather have an electoral hammering this year, than ignite a civil war that lasted a decade.
While the Democrats had a very odd Primary season where Iowa almost didn't happen, and then plausible five moderates got crowded out by a former Republican mayor.
Bloomberg's contribution to the process was spectacularly negative. I see all talk of him running as an independent has been quietly binned.
If I was wondering who the 5% chance was of someone else (other than a medical replacement) the only one I see that would instantly have the credibility would be Bill Gates. And I can't see him being willing to take it on.
There are a whole bunch of interesting "what ifs" in this Democratic Primary season...
- what if Biden had decided not to run?
- what if Bernie Sanders hadn't bounced back from his heart attack quickly, and Ms Warren was the sole candidate on the left of the party?
- what if Iowa had gone smoothly, and Buttigieg had gotten the traditional bounce?
- what Bloomberg had decided not to run?
- what if Klobuchar had not had the great debate performance in New Hampshire that catapulted her into third?
If Biden hadn't run, maybe Sherrod Brown would have done. If Warren was the only representative of the left, she might have ended up the nominee. If Iowa had gone smoothly, then maybe Buttigieg would have won New Hampshire and the Democratic establishment would have rallied around him.
And that's the nature of gambling and probability. There are lots of little things that could have had big impacts.
What if I had laid off my massive green on My Girl The Big Liz when she went odds on. Like a sensible person would have
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Evidence? Trump won more electoral college votes than any Republican since Bush Snr in 1988 in 2016, Biden is currently polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton
Yes, but he won a smaller share of the voting age population than Romney.
Don't you think that's extraordinary. A smaller share of voters than Romney.
The Financial Times is reporting that thousands of UK office staff working from home are unlikely to return to their place of work anytime soon.
Well of course not. Working from home is one of the policies that one would expect to have the biggest effect on transmission of the disease and, simultaneously, the smallest effect on economic activity.
Train companies and other businesses servicing the needs of all the non-existent commuters will self-evidently be completely screwed because of this, but in other respects it increases efficiency and wealth. So why shouldn't it just go on and on?
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Which does rather beg the question of why they are the ones on the tickets.
That's easy. The Republican establishment would rather have an electoral hammering this year, than ignite a civil war that lasted a decade.
While the Democrats had a very odd Primary season where Iowa almost didn't happen, and then plausible five moderates got crowded out by a former Republican mayor.
Bloomberg's contribution to the process was spectacularly negative. I see all talk of him running as an independent has been quietly binned.
If I was wondering who the 5% chance was of someone else (other than a medical replacement) the only one I see that would instantly have the credibility would be Bill Gates. And I can't see him being willing to take it on.
There are a whole bunch of interesting "what ifs" in this Democratic Primary season...
- what if Biden had decided not to run?
- what if Bernie Sanders hadn't bounced back from his heart attack quickly, and Ms Warren was the sole candidate on the left of the party?
- what if Iowa had gone smoothly, and Buttigieg had gotten the traditional bounce?
- what Bloomberg had decided not to run?
- what if Klobuchar had not had the great debate performance in New Hampshire that catapulted her into third?
If Biden hadn't run, maybe Sherrod Brown would have done. If Warren was the only representative of the left, she might have ended up the nominee. If Iowa had gone smoothly, then maybe Buttigieg would have won New Hampshire and the Democratic establishment would have rallied around him.
And that's the nature of gambling and probability. There are lots of little things that could have had big impacts.
Sherrod Brown did run. He didn't get any traction, probably because of Biden and the amount of media coverage Mayor Pete attracted.
He would have been a decent runner, and was the candidate I first piled on way back in October 2018.
We've reached the Freedom Fries stage. Good to have the marker.
I just want China to cede back control of Hong Kong, for perpetuity.
Why? We had it in perpetuity before. Our Foreign Office would just find a way to cede it back.
We didn't, we had it on a 99 year leasehold, I want it back as a freehold.
We had the island in perpetuity, the main land territory was on the 99 year lease hold.
We handed back the island even though it was ours forever because Deng Xioapeng said he would take it by force if we didn’t and there was feck all we could do to stop him.
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Which does rather beg the question of why they are the ones on the tickets.
That's easy. The Republican establishment would rather have an electoral hammering this year, than ignite a civil war that lasted a decade.
While the Democrats had a very odd Primary season where Iowa almost didn't happen, and then plausible five moderates got crowded out by a former Republican mayor.
Bloomberg's contribution to the process was spectacularly negative. I see all talk of him running as an independent has been quietly binned.
If I was wondering who the 5% chance was of someone else (other than a medical replacement) the only one I see that would instantly have the credibility would be Bill Gates. And I can't see him being willing to take it on.
Do you really think Bill Gates has more appeal to the white working class in the rustbelt and the black vote the Democrats must turn out to beat Trump than Biden?
White working class I would say yes. Black I don't know. But he would also appeal to a lot of Republicans weary of the chaos, the incoherence, the stupidity and the vulgarity.
Trump still has almost a 90% approval rating with Republicans, centrist Republicans Gates might appeal to leave in safe Democratic states like California, Washington state and New York which voted for Hillary anyway.
It is the rustbelt the Democrats need to win to beat Trump
The US overtakes Italy in total cases per population
But less than half the rate of death. Has there been a significant improvement in treatments since the early days of northern Italy? It seems odd.
Italy has many more multi-generational families than the US. Young people, who socialise, get the disease and bring it home. That infects the elderly in Italy, and the housemates in the US.
You think? Even amongst the Mexican community, for example? I think the explanations are likely to prove more complex and diffuse.
The Mexican community (in LA) will be living six to a two room shotgun house. But granny is unlikely to be with them. She'll be back in Mexico receiving wires via Union Express.
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Evidence? Trump won more electoral college votes than any Republican since Bush Snr in 1988 in 2016, Biden is currently polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton
Yes, but he won a smaller share of the voting age population than Romney.
Don't you think that's extraordinary. A smaller share of voters than Romney.
Not in the Midwest swing states though nor in Florida and in actual votes Trump won more than Romney did
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
See America, Fox and the GOP. If your party has its own channel, it can have its own facts. The war is not against the MSM but against the very concept of truth.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
The cure is to raise the game.
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
But most people who decry the MSM are not looking for facts. They're looking for validation of the mush in their head.
Well, I am looking for facts. And there are quite a few people who are as well. Hence ArsTechnica being a good business etc.
I am sure you are. And of course many others. All power to you. But that is not the template for MSM haters. I'd draw a comparison with intelligent, humane and knowledgeable Leavers. There are plenty of them too, some on here, but they are nevertheless highly unrepresentative of the breed.
You should look at some the surveys of beliefs of anti-vaxers - might surprise you.
But to the main point - you can't fight back by saying "Our opponents are morally wrong to point out our mistakes"
The Catholic church tried that for centuries, for example. It hasn't worked.
If you want to have a reputation for accuracy, you have to earn it. Demanding a reputation doesn't work.
Hang Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize on your wall, if you like. But you will be judged for it.
I'm not saying it's wrong to point out (the many) mistakes in the MSM. It isn't. It's completely right to do so. What I'm saying is that those who are forever accusing the MSM of fake news - and especially if they use that phrase - are almost without exception softheads and nutters. This makes it more difficult than it should be for people like you - rational critics of the MSM - to be heard. The smearers of the MSM are a bigger menace to you, to me, than the MSM is.
What would surprise me about the views of anti-vaxers? Not sure I follow what you're getting at there.
The biggest menace to the MSM is the MSM. Every time the publish a story with obvious mistakes they are enabling the nutters.
C'mon. These people are not "enabled" by media mistakes. They don't need mistakes at all. They use the "fake news" slur indiscriminately. It has nothing to do with whether something is true or not. Only whether it goes against their warped extremist views. If it does QED it's fake. It's a total disgrace how they carry on.
As is what you say here. Imagine somebody being relentlessly bullied who also happens to make mistakes in life. Then you come along and you tell the victim that it's their fault. By making mistakes they are enabling the bullies. You see how this is not the way to go?
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Which does rather beg the question of why they are the ones on the tickets.
That's easy. The Republican establishment would rather have an electoral hammering this year, than ignite a civil war that lasted a decade.
While the Democrats had a very odd Primary season where Iowa almost didn't happen, and then plausible five moderates got crowded out by a former Republican mayor.
Bloomberg's contribution to the process was spectacularly negative. I see all talk of him running as an independent has been quietly binned.
If I was wondering who the 5% chance was of someone else (other than a medical replacement) the only one I see that would instantly have the credibility would be Bill Gates. And I can't see him being willing to take it on.
There are a whole bunch of interesting "what ifs" in this Democratic Primary season...
- what if Biden had decided not to run?
- what if Bernie Sanders hadn't bounced back from his heart attack quickly, and Ms Warren was the sole candidate on the left of the party?
- what if Iowa had gone smoothly, and Buttigieg had gotten the traditional bounce?
- what Bloomberg had decided not to run?
- what if Klobuchar had not had the great debate performance in New Hampshire that catapulted her into third?
If Biden hadn't run, maybe Sherrod Brown would have done. If Warren was the only representative of the left, she might have ended up the nominee. If Iowa had gone smoothly, then maybe Buttigieg would have won New Hampshire and the Democratic establishment would have rallied around him.
And that's the nature of gambling and probability. There are lots of little things that could have had big impacts.
Sherrod Brown did run. He didn't get any traction, probably because of Biden and the amount of media coverage Mayor Pete attracted.
He would have been a decent runner, and was the candidate I first piled on way back in October 2018.
Contemplating a new future. What are going to be the really big changes? Travel and tourism is surely going to be one of them. As a next exporter of tourists, that could be of benefit to the UK. We should also be able to create jobs in the health and care sectors, while there will need to be domestic manufacturing of PPE, so that will be good, too. On top of that, our digital economy could be a significant beneficiary. Where else can we win?
Digital tourism - there may be gullibles willing to pay for digital site tours, etc
Why is everyone so sure travel and tourism will die? It is only a couple of weeks since we were barricading motorways to stop people driving to beauty spots and the French were turning back billionaires and secretaries.
I agree - but until the arrival of cure or vaccine - it's going to be either illegal or very, very expensive.
Isn't that a bit simplistic?
In the US, travel across state lines will return fairly quickly. Holidays will happen, just - mostly as now - staying in country.
In Europe, Schengen will slowly return. First in places like Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, where it's simply too expensive not to exist. Then among neighbouring countries which both have things under control. Simply, it's too expensive not to allow the relatively free movement of goods and people among many of the European countries.
Germans will probably drive to holidays in Southern Europe rather than fly (and that's bad for Greece, but probably good for the Northern touristy bits of Italy and Spain).
What will take a longer time to return will be airplanes, because there will be a natural and understandable suspicion that a large number of people who spend hours in a metal box coming from far away might end up all infecting themselves.
But if you assume that - three years from now - we have a working vaccine, reasonable treatments, and a large number of people who have already had it, and therefore have at least partial immunity, then why wouldn't tourism return? Brits will still want sunshine and skiing. Chinese and Japanese will still want to see Big Ben. American businessmen will still want to sell Australian ones.
What about rare earth metals for our batteries and catalytic converters? Are we not going to buy them either?
That is difficult. I grant you but if its branded as chinese one can pass on it. I note my M and S slippers are made on Vietnam.. so thats ok even if its another communist dictatorship
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Evidence? Trump won more electoral college votes than any Republican since Bush Snr in 1988 in 2016, Biden is currently polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton
Yes, but he won a smaller share of the voting age population than Romney.
Don't you think that's extraordinary. A smaller share of voters than Romney.
You and I are the only people on PB who think that is relevant.
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Which does rather beg the question of why they are the ones on the tickets.
That's easy. The Republican establishment would rather have an electoral hammering this year, than ignite a civil war that lasted a decade.
While the Democrats had a very odd Primary season where Iowa almost didn't happen, and then plausible five moderates got crowded out by a former Republican mayor.
Bloomberg's contribution to the process was spectacularly negative. I see all talk of him running as an independent has been quietly binned.
If I was wondering who the 5% chance was of someone else (other than a medical replacement) the only one I see that would instantly have the credibility would be Bill Gates. And I can't see him being willing to take it on.
Do you really think Bill Gates has more appeal to the white working class in the rustbelt and the black vote the Democrats must turn out to beat Trump than Biden?
White working class I would say yes. Black I don't know. But he would also appeal to a lot of Republicans weary of the chaos, the incoherence, the stupidity and the vulgarity.
Trump still has almost a 90% approval rating with Republicans, centrist Republicans Gates might appeal to leave in safe Democratic states like California, Washington state and New York which voted for Hillary anyway.
It is the rustbelt the Democrats need to win to beat Trump
What percentage of people are now identifying as Republican?
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Evidence? Trump won more electoral college votes than any Republican since Bush Snr in 1988 in 2016, Biden is currently polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton
Yes, but he won a smaller share of the voting age population than Romney.
Don't you think that's extraordinary. A smaller share of voters than Romney.
Not in the Midwest swing states though nor in Florida and in actual votes Trump won more than Romney did
Yeah, but rising populations pretty much ensure that each President gets more votes than the last, so that's not a high bar.
President Trump won because Hillary Clinton was a monumentally poor candidate who went down like a bucket of cold sick in the Midwest.
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Evidence? Trump won more electoral college votes than any Republican since Bush Snr in 1988 in 2016, Biden is currently polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton
Yes, but he won a smaller share of the voting age population than Romney.
Don't you think that's extraordinary. A smaller share of voters than Romney.
You and I are the only people on PB who think that is relevant.
And I.
Next weekend I'm publishing a thread entitled 'Why have Republicans only won the popular vote once in the last seven Presidential elections?'
Is it really sustainable when the winning side keeps on the losing the election?
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Which does rather beg the question of why they are the ones on the tickets.
That's easy. The Republican establishment would rather have an electoral hammering this year, than ignite a civil war that lasted a decade.
While the Democrats had a very odd Primary season where Iowa almost didn't happen, and then plausible five moderates got crowded out by a former Republican mayor.
Bloomberg's contribution to the process was spectacularly negative. I see all talk of him running as an independent has been quietly binned.
If I was wondering who the 5% chance was of someone else (other than a medical replacement) the only one I see that would instantly have the credibility would be Bill Gates. And I can't see him being willing to take it on.
Do you really think Bill Gates has more appeal to the white working class in the rustbelt and the black vote the Democrats must turn out to beat Trump than Biden?
White working class I would say yes. Black I don't know. But he would also appeal to a lot of Republicans weary of the chaos, the incoherence, the stupidity and the vulgarity.
Trump still has almost a 90% approval rating with Republicans, centrist Republicans Gates might appeal to leave in safe Democratic states like California, Washington state and New York which voted for Hillary anyway.
It is the rustbelt the Democrats need to win to beat Trump
The number of registered Republicans just fell below the number of registered Independents for the first time in history.
So, he's enthusing those that are left, while driving out others from the party.
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Evidence? Trump won more electoral college votes than any Republican since Bush Snr in 1988 in 2016, Biden is currently polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton
Yes, but he won a smaller share of the voting age population than Romney.
Don't you think that's extraordinary. A smaller share of voters than Romney.
Not in the Midwest swing states though nor in Florida and in actual votes Trump won more than Romney did
Yeah, but rising populations pretty much ensure that each President gets more votes than the last, so that's not a high bar.
President Trump won because Hillary Clinton was a monumentally poor candidate who went down like a bucket of cold sick in the Midwest.
He won because like the Brexit vote and Boris' 2019 win the white working class were fed up of globalisation and uncontrolled immigration, for the Midwest and rustbelt there read the North and Midlands here
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
See America, Fox and the GOP. If your party has its own channel, it can have its own facts. The war is not against the MSM but against the very concept of truth.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
The cure is to raise the game.
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
But most people who decry the MSM are not looking for facts. They're looking for validation of the mush in their head.
Well, I am looking for facts. And there are quite a few people who are as well. Hence ArsTechnica being a good business etc.
I am sure you are. And of course many others. All power to you. But that is not the template for MSM haters. I'd draw a comparison with intelligent, humane and knowledgeable Leavers. There are plenty of them too, some on here, but they are nevertheless highly unrepresentative of the breed.
You should look at some the surveys of beliefs of anti-vaxers - might surprise you.
But to the main point - you can't fight back by saying "Our opponents are morally wrong to point out our mistakes"
The Catholic church tried that for centuries, for example. It hasn't worked.
If you want to have a reputation for accuracy, you have to earn it. Demanding a reputation doesn't work.
Hang Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize on your wall, if you like. But you will be judged for it.
I'm not saying it's wrong to point out (the many) mistakes in the MSM. It isn't. It's completely right to do so. What I'm saying is that those who are forever accusing the MSM of fake news - and especially if they use that phrase - are almost without exception softheads and nutters. This makes it more difficult than it should be for people like you - rational critics of the MSM - to be heard. The smearers of the MSM are a bigger menace to you, to me, than the MSM is.
What would surprise me about the views of anti-vaxers? Not sure I follow what you're getting at there.
Its not so much it is fake news but that any time the press write about a subject you know a fair amount about you find them so hideously wrong about everything that it is more or less misinformation. Frankly if a journalist told me it was raining these days I would insist on checking for myself.
If when they talk about things I know about they are so ill informed I can only assume that when they are talking about something I know nothing about they are probably just as ill informed and I would be better off ignoring anything they say as its likely claptrap.
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Evidence? Trump won more electoral college votes than any Republican since Bush Snr in 1988 in 2016, Biden is currently polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton
Yes, but he won a smaller share of the voting age population than Romney.
Don't you think that's extraordinary. A smaller share of voters than Romney.
Not in the Midwest swing states though nor in Florida and in actual votes Trump won more than Romney did
Yeah, but rising populations pretty much ensure that each President gets more votes than the last, so that's not a high bar.
President Trump won because Hillary Clinton was a monumentally poor candidate who went down like a bucket of cold sick in the Midwest.
No, it is because Hillary did not campaign in the Midwest. Her campaign team made the same mistake it made against Obama in the primaries eight years earlier, of weighing votes when it should have been counting delegates.
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Evidence? Trump won more electoral college votes than any Republican since Bush Snr in 1988 in 2016, Biden is currently polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton
Yes, but he won a smaller share of the voting age population than Romney.
Don't you think that's extraordinary. A smaller share of voters than Romney.
You and I are the only people on PB who think that is relevant.
And I.
Next weekend I'm publishing a thread entitled 'Why have Republicans only won the popular vote once in the last seven Presidential elections?'
Is it really sustainable when the winning side keeps on the losing the election?
And the scandal here too where the winning side keeps on losing the argument.
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Evidence? Trump won more electoral college votes than any Republican since Bush Snr in 1988 in 2016, Biden is currently polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton
Yes, but he won a smaller share of the voting age population than Romney.
Don't you think that's extraordinary. A smaller share of voters than Romney.
You and I are the only people on PB who think that is relevant.
And I.
Next weekend I'm publishing a thread entitled 'Why have Republicans only won the popular vote once in the last seven Presidential elections?'
Is it really sustainable when the winning side keeps on the losing the election?
When the popular vote is irrelevant in electing the president yes
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Evidence? Trump won more electoral college votes than any Republican since Bush Snr in 1988 in 2016, Biden is currently polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton
Yes, but he won a smaller share of the voting age population than Romney.
Don't you think that's extraordinary. A smaller share of voters than Romney.
Not in the Midwest swing states though nor in Florida and in actual votes Trump won more than Romney did
Yeah, but rising populations pretty much ensure that each President gets more votes than the last, so that's not a high bar.
President Trump won because Hillary Clinton was a monumentally poor candidate who went down like a bucket of cold sick in the Midwest.
He won because like the Brexit vote and Boris' 2019 win the white working class were fed up of globalisation and uncontrolled immigration, for the Midwest and rustbrlt there read the North and Midlands here
Does this mean that if Biden wins this time around that the white working class now demand more globalisation and completely uncontrolled immigration?
Or does it mean that Biden is not Hillary?
I'm going for the second, but feel free to go for the first if you like.
Love how @HYUFD continues to love to speak for the white working class of the North and the Midlands from his middle class part of Essex. Champagne working class as it were.
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Evidence? Trump won more electoral college votes than any Republican since Bush Snr in 1988 in 2016, Biden is currently polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton
Yes, but he won a smaller share of the voting age population than Romney.
Don't you think that's extraordinary. A smaller share of voters than Romney.
Not in the Midwest swing states though nor in Florida and in actual votes Trump won more than Romney did
Yeah, but rising populations pretty much ensure that each President gets more votes than the last, so that's not a high bar.
President Trump won because Hillary Clinton was a monumentally poor candidate who went down like a bucket of cold sick in the Midwest.
He won because like the Brexit vote and Boris' 2019 win the white working class were fed up of globalisation and uncontrolled immigration, for the Midwest and rustbelt there read the North and Midlands here
Trump won because he convinced the disposessed he was on their side. To paraphrase the Marquess of Queensberry, it was Donald Trump, posing as a populist.
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
See America, Fox and the GOP. If your party has its own channel, it can have its own facts. The war is not against the MSM but against the very concept of truth.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
The cure is to raise the game.
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
But most people who decry the MSM are not looking for facts. They're looking for validation of the mush in their head.
Well, I am looking for facts. And there are quite a few people who are as well. Hence ArsTechnica being a good business etc.
I am sure you are. And of course many others. All power to you. But that is not the template for MSM haters. I'd draw a comparison with intelligent, humane and knowledgeable Leavers. There are plenty of them too, some on here, but they are nevertheless highly unrepresentative of the breed.
You should look at some the surveys of beliefs of anti-vaxers - might surprise you.
But to the main point - you can't fight back by saying "Our opponents are morally wrong to point out our mistakes"
The Catholic church tried that for centuries, for example. It hasn't worked.
If you want to have a reputation for accuracy, you have to earn it. Demanding a reputation doesn't work.
Hang Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize on your wall, if you like. But you will be judged for it.
I'm not saying it's wrong to point out (the many) mistakes in the MSM. It isn't. It's completely right to do so. What I'm saying is that those who are forever accusing the MSM of fake news - and especially if they use that phrase - are almost without exception softheads and nutters. This makes it more difficult than it should be for people like you - rational critics of the MSM - to be heard. The smearers of the MSM are a bigger menace to you, to me, than the MSM is.
What would surprise me about the views of anti-vaxers? Not sure I follow what you're getting at there.
The biggest menace to the MSM is the MSM. Every time the publish a story with obvious mistakes they are enabling the nutters.
C'mon. These people are not "enabled" by media mistakes. They don't need mistakes at all. They use the "fake news" slur indiscriminately. It has nothing to do with whether something is true or not. Only whether it goes against their warped extremist views. If it does QED it's fake. It's a total disgrace how they carry on.
As is what you say here. Imagine somebody being relentlessly bullied who also happens to make mistakes in life. Then you come along and you tell the victim that it's their fault. By making mistakes they are enabling the bullies. You see how this is not the way to go?
Imagine your job is to present facts. Then someone comes along and points out your mistakes. Is that bullying?
The lawyer, who recently participated in convicting a woman under a law that doesn't exist - is criticising that bullying?
The policeman who threaten to fit up someone - is the problem filming him doing it? Is that bullying? Or is it his fault?
The banker who lost their shirts in 2008 - their job was to manage money. Is critiquing them bullying? Or is their fault?
CNN, for example, were very keep on the idea that they, a multi-billion dollar organsiation were being hounded by people in their pyjamas.
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Evidence? Trump won more electoral college votes than any Republican since Bush Snr in 1988 in 2016, Biden is currently polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton
Yes, but he won a smaller share of the voting age population than Romney.
Don't you think that's extraordinary. A smaller share of voters than Romney.
Not in the Midwest swing states though nor in Florida and in actual votes Trump won more than Romney did
Yeah, but rising populations pretty much ensure that each President gets more votes than the last, so that's not a high bar.
President Trump won because Hillary Clinton was a monumentally poor candidate who went down like a bucket of cold sick in the Midwest.
No, it is because Hillary did not campaign in the Midwest. Her campaign team made the same mistake it made against Obama in the primaries eight years earlier, of weighing votes when it should have been counting delegates.
It's a fair point: Trump's margins were miniscule across the Midwest. If she had campaigned in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, then it might have been President Clinton.
But I would still point out that Ms Clinton had negatives up the wazoo. And lots of reliably Democratic voters stayed home rather than going out to vote for her.
Love how @HYUFD continues to love to speak for the white working class of the North and the Midlands from his middle class part of Essex. Champagne working class as it were.
I dint know but we know all about champagne socialists . Di
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Evidence? Trump won more electoral college votes than any Republican since Bush Snr in 1988 in 2016, Biden is currently polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton
Yes, but he won a smaller share of the voting age population than Romney.
Don't you think that's extraordinary. A smaller share of voters than Romney.
Not in the Midwest swing states though nor in Florida and in actual votes Trump won more than Romney did
Yeah, but rising populations pretty much ensure that each President gets more votes than the last, so that's not a high bar.
President Trump won because Hillary Clinton was a monumentally poor candidate who went down like a bucket of cold sick in the Midwest.
No, it is because Hillary did not campaign in the Midwest. Her campaign team made the same mistake it made against Obama in the primaries eight years earlier, of weighing votes when it should have been counting delegates.
It's a fair point: Trump's margins were miniscule across the Midwest. If she had campaigned in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, then it might have been President Clinton.
But I would still point out that Ms Clinton had negatives up the wazoo. And lots of reliably Democratic voters stayed home rather than going out to vote for her.
Not just her. The election was a landslide for the DNV party.
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Evidence? Trump won more electoral college votes than any Republican since Bush Snr in 1988 in 2016, Biden is currently polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton
Yes, but he won a smaller share of the voting age population than Romney.
Don't you think that's extraordinary. A smaller share of voters than Romney.
Not in the Midwest swing states though nor in Florida and in actual votes Trump won more than Romney did
Yeah, but rising populations pretty much ensure that each President gets more votes than the last, so that's not a high bar.
President Trump won because Hillary Clinton was a monumentally poor candidate who went down like a bucket of cold sick in the Midwest.
He won because like the Brexit vote and Boris' 2019 win the white working class were fed up of globalisation and uncontrolled immigration, for the Midwest and rustbrlt there read the North and Midlands here
Does this mean that if Biden wins this time around that the white working class now demand more globalisation and completely uncontrolled immigration?
Or does it mean that Biden is not Hillary?
I'm going for the second, but feel free to go for the first if you like.
It means Biden is seen as less of a globalist than Hillary and more protectionist, which is probably true
We've reached the Freedom Fries stage. Good to have the marker.
I just want China to cede back control of Hong Kong, for perpetuity.
Why? We had it in perpetuity before. Our Foreign Office would just find a way to cede it back.
We didn't, we had it on a 99 year leasehold, I want it back as a freehold.
To be exact, we had Hong Kong Island and Kowloon Peninsula in perpetuity, and the mainland part of it on a 99 year leasehold.
Yes. We should have held the Chinese to their word.
Personally, though, I think it's probably gone for good. But we can have Hong Kongers without Hong Kong. We should give Hong Kong ID card holders UK citizenship if they want it, certainly if China breaks the One Country Two Systems formula. We should have done so in 1997.
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
See America, Fox and the GOP. If your party has its own channel, it can have its own facts. The war is not against the MSM but against the very concept of truth.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
The cure is to raise the game.
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
But most people who decry the MSM are not looking for facts. They're looking for validation of the mush in their head.
Well, I am looking for facts. And there are quite a few people who are as well. Hence ArsTechnica being a good business etc.
I am sure you are. And of course many others. All power to you. But that is not the template for MSM haters. I'd draw a comparison with intelligent, humane and knowledgeable Leavers. There are plenty of them too, some on here, but they are nevertheless highly unrepresentative of the breed.
You should look at some the surveys of beliefs of anti-vaxers - might surprise you.
But to the main point - you can't fight back by saying "Our opponents are morally wrong to point out our mistakes"
The Catholic church tried that for centuries, for example. It hasn't worked.
If you want to have a reputation for accuracy, you have to earn it. Demanding a reputation doesn't work.
Hang Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize on your wall, if you like. But you will be judged for it.
I'm not saying it's wrong to point out (the many) mistakes in the MSM. It isn't. It's completely right to do so. What I'm saying is that those who are forever accusing the MSM of fake news - and especially if they use that phrase - are almost without exception softheads and nutters. This makes it more difficult than it should be for people like you - rational critics of the MSM - to be heard. The smearers of the MSM are a bigger menace to you, to me, than the MSM is.
What would surprise me about the views of anti-vaxers? Not sure I follow what you're getting at there.
The biggest menace to the MSM is the MSM. Every time the publish a story with obvious mistakes they are enabling the nutters.
C'mon. These people are not "enabled" by media mistakes. They don't need mistakes at all. They use the "fake news" slur indiscriminately. It has nothing to do with whether something is true or not. Only whether it goes against their warped extremist views. If it does QED it's fake. It's a total disgrace how they carry on.
As is what you say here. Imagine somebody being relentlessly bullied who also happens to make mistakes in life. Then you come along and you tell the victim that it's their fault. By making mistakes they are enabling the bullies. You see how this is not the way to go?
Imagine your job is to present facts. Then someone comes along and points out your mistakes. Is that bullying?
The lawyer, who recently participated in convicting a woman under a law that doesn't exist - is criticising that bullying?
The policeman who threaten to fit up someone - is the problem filming him doing it? Is that bullying? Or is it his fault?
The banker who lost their shirts in 2008 - their job was to manage money. Is critiquing them bullying? Or is their fault?
CNN, for example, were very keep on the idea that they, a multi-billion dollar organsiation were being hounded by people in their pyjamas.
On topic, "Health, on the other hand, is a little bit more of an issue. Both men are well into their seventies – Biden much closer to eighty – and Trump is overweight, and there’s a pandemic swirling that is particularly harsh towards those in that age group. It’s far from impossible to see circumstances in which one or the other might be replaced. That said, for the bet to pay out, not only would that candidate have to be replaced but they’d have to win."
I would have though that almost any other Democrat or Republican would do better than Mr Angry Liar and Mr Dementia.
Evidence? Trump won more electoral college votes than any Republican since Bush Snr in 1988 in 2016, Biden is currently polling better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton
Yes, but he won a smaller share of the voting age population than Romney.
Don't you think that's extraordinary. A smaller share of voters than Romney.
You and I are the only people on PB who think that is relevant.
And I.
Next weekend I'm publishing a thread entitled 'Why have Republicans only won the popular vote once in the last seven Presidential elections?'
Is it really sustainable when the winning side keeps on the losing the election?
Well, if California and New York would stop being so reliably Democrat these last seven Presidential elections.... Takes an awful lot of Utah's to overturn them.
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
See America, Fox and the GOP. If your party has its own channel, it can have its own facts. The war is not against the MSM but against the very concept of truth.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
The cure is to raise the game.
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
But most people who decry the MSM are not looking for facts. They're looking for validation of the mush in their head.
Well, I am looking for facts. And there are quite a few people who are as well. Hence ArsTechnica being a good business etc.
I am sure you are. And of course many others. All power to you. But that is not the template for MSM haters. I'd draw a comparison with intelligent, humane and knowledgeable Leavers. There are plenty of them too, some on here, but they are nevertheless highly unrepresentative of the breed.
You should look at some the surveys of beliefs of anti-vaxers - might surprise you.
But to the main point - you can't fight back by saying "Our opponents are morally wrong to point out our mistakes"
The Catholic church tried that for centuries, for example. It hasn't worked.
If you want to have a reputation for accuracy, you have to earn it. Demanding a reputation doesn't work.
Hang Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize on your wall, if you like. But you will be judged for it.
I'm not saying it's wrong to point out (the many) mistakes in the MSM. It isn't. It's completely right to do so. What I'm saying is that those who are forever accusing the MSM of fake news - and especially if they use that phrase - are almost without exception softheads and nutters. This makes it more difficult than it should be for people like you - rational critics of the MSM - to be heard. The smearers of the MSM are a bigger menace to you, to me, than the MSM is.
What would surprise me about the views of anti-vaxers? Not sure I follow what you're getting at there.
Its not so much it is fake news but that any time the press write about a subject you know a fair amount about you find them so hideously wrong about everything that it is more or less misinformation. Frankly if a journalist told me it was raining these days I would insist on checking for myself.
If when they talk about things I know about they are so ill informed I can only assume that when they are talking about something I know nothing about they are probably just as ill informed and I would be better off ignoring anything they say as its likely claptrap.
Really? I can't say I find that myself. It could be that I have little expertise in anything (which is true) or it could be I tend to read quality publications (also true). Certainly if I have a skim through, say, the Sun or the Mirror I will feel as you do. Which is why I rarely do that.
We've reached the Freedom Fries stage. Good to have the marker.
I just want China to cede back control of Hong Kong, for perpetuity.
Why? We had it in perpetuity before. Our Foreign Office would just find a way to cede it back.
We didn't, we had it on a 99 year leasehold, I want it back as a freehold.
To be exact, we had Hong Kong Island and Kowloon Peninsula in perpetuity, and the mainland part of it on a 99 year leasehold.
Yes. We should have held the Chinese to their word.
Personally, though, I think it's probably gone for good. But we can have Hong Kongers without Hong Kong. We should give Hong Kong ID card holders UK citizenship if they want it, certainly if China breaks the One Country Two Systems formula. We should have done so in 1997.
I suppose it depends how much we want to annoy the PRC after all this is done. I see the US are already at it with tweets about giving the ROC a role at the UN.
Love how @HYUFD continues to love to speak for the white working class of the North and the Midlands from his middle class part of Essex. Champagne working class as it were.
Some parts of Essex are middle class, others less so. Same as the north and the midlands.
The slightly weird thing about that article is that David Herdson's views are given so much prominance we never find out what Princess Di would have thought.
We've reached the Freedom Fries stage. Good to have the marker.
I just want China to cede back control of Hong Kong, for perpetuity.
Why? We had it in perpetuity before. Our Foreign Office would just find a way to cede it back.
We didn't, we had it on a 99 year leasehold, I want it back as a freehold.
To be exact, we had Hong Kong Island and Kowloon Peninsula in perpetuity, and the mainland part of it on a 99 year leasehold.
Yes. We should have held the Chinese to their word.
Personally, though, I think it's probably gone for good. But we can have Hong Kongers without Hong Kong. We should give Hong Kong ID card holders UK citizenship if they want it, certainly if China breaks the One Country Two Systems formula. We should have done so in 1997.
Deng’s view - and with this I admit I have some sympathy - was that an island seized by force and ceded at swordpoint as a trading station for hard drugs was not something that he, three revolutions and a changed world order later, needed to recognise as a legitimate colony.
His solution, which again was not unreasonable as a compromise to escape a knotty problem, was One Country, Two Systems.
The problem is that the Chinese, and especially Xi, have not kept to it.
Love how @HYUFD continues to love to speak for the white working class of the North and the Midlands from his middle class part of Essex. Champagne working class as it were.
Some parts of Essex are middle class, others less so. Same as the north and the midlands.
My part of Essex is part nouveau riche, part traditional middle class mainly as is Brentwood.
North Essex is posh, Home Counties middle class as is Chelmsford.
Harlow, Basildon, Thurrock and the Essex coast are mainly working class
Love how @HYUFD continues to love to speak for the white working class of the North and the Midlands from his middle class part of Essex. Champagne working class as it were.
Let's not be unnecessarily restrictive, he also loves to speak for a handy (though smaller than he thinks) chunk of Scottish and NI Unionists.
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
See America, Fox and the GOP. If your party has its own channel, it can have its own facts. The war is not against the MSM but against the very concept of truth.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
The cure is to raise the game.
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
But most people who decry the MSM are not looking for facts. They're looking for validation of the mush in their head.
Well, I am looking for facts. And there are quite a few people who are as well. Hence ArsTechnica being a good business etc.
I am sure you are. And of course many others. All power to you. But that is not the template for MSM haters. I'd draw a comparison with intelligent, humane and knowledgeable Leavers. There are plenty of them too, some on here, but they are nevertheless highly unrepresentative of the breed.
You should look at some the surveys of beliefs of anti-vaxers - might surprise you.
But to the main point - you can't fight back by saying "Our opponents are morally wrong to point out our mistakes"
The Catholic church tried that for centuries, for example. It hasn't worked.
If you want to have a reputation for accuracy, you have to earn it. Demanding a reputation doesn't work.
Hang Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize on your wall, if you like. But you will be judged for it.
I'm not saying it's wrong to point out (the many) mistakes in the MSM. It isn't. It's completely right to do so. What I'm saying is that those who are forever accusing the MSM of fake news - and especially if they use that phrase - are almost without exception softheads and nutters. This makes it more difficult than it should be for people like you - rational critics of the MSM - to be heard. The smearers of the MSM are a bigger menace to you, to me, than the MSM is.
What would surprise me about the views of anti-vaxers? Not sure I follow what you're getting at there.
Its not so much it is fake news but that any time the press write about a subject you know a fair amount about you find them so hideously wrong about everything that it is more or less misinformation. Frankly if a journalist told me it was raining these days I would insist on checking for myself.
If when they talk about things I know about they are so ill informed I can only assume that when they are talking about something I know nothing about they are probably just as ill informed and I would be better off ignoring anything they say as its likely claptrap.
Really? I can't say I find that myself. It could be that I have little expertise in anything (which is true) or it could be I tend to read quality publications (also true). Certainly if I have a skim through, say, the Sun or the Mirror I will feel as you do. Which is why I rarely do.
I work in IT, even the times manages to get most things about it completely wrong, the bbc even more so. They are both dire and the rest are generally even worse. Why should I then believe they do a better job at anything else.
A good example of their idiocy was that letter signed by all those professors about the virus....only most were grad students and even the professors were in subjects that had nothing to do with biology let alone virology.
In my view anyone who pays any attention on any subject to anything the MSM have to say is asking to be given their information as filtered by dunces. These days I find it much better to visit specialist websites for all the information I need.
For example I will check out the register, techdirt, ars technica, wired for information on it related stuff. For general politics I will come here as my main site and read a couple of others.
Frankly that probably makes me about 10 times as informed as people that rely on the tv news, Times, Guardian etc.
MSM is not fit for purpose and hopefully will goto the wall before long
Love how @HYUFD continues to love to speak for the white working class of the North and the Midlands from his middle class part of Essex. Champagne working class as it were.
He also tells us there is nothing wrong with the local mosque belting out the call to prayer through a PA system when his 'local' mosque is 20 miles away.
We've reached the Freedom Fries stage. Good to have the marker.
I just want China to cede back control of Hong Kong, for perpetuity.
Why? We had it in perpetuity before. Our Foreign Office would just find a way to cede it back.
We didn't, we had it on a 99 year leasehold, I want it back as a freehold.
To be exact, we had Hong Kong Island and Kowloon Peninsula in perpetuity, and the mainland part of it on a 99 year leasehold.
Yes. We should have held the Chinese to their word.
Personally, though, I think it's probably gone for good. But we can have Hong Kongers without Hong Kong. We should give Hong Kong ID card holders UK citizenship if they want it, certainly if China breaks the One Country Two Systems formula. We should have done so in 1997.
The Labour party threatened all kinds of things over the rumour that John Major was considering handing out 100s of thousands of UK passports to Hong Kong people.
Apparently they were the wrong kind of (potential) immigrants.
We've reached the Freedom Fries stage. Good to have the marker.
I just want China to cede back control of Hong Kong, for perpetuity.
Why? We had it in perpetuity before. Our Foreign Office would just find a way to cede it back.
We didn't, we had it on a 99 year leasehold, I want it back as a freehold.
To be exact, we had Hong Kong Island and Kowloon Peninsula in perpetuity, and the mainland part of it on a 99 year leasehold.
Yes. We should have held the Chinese to their word.
Personally, though, I think it's probably gone for good. But we can have Hong Kongers without Hong Kong. We should give Hong Kong ID card holders UK citizenship if they want it, certainly if China breaks the One Country Two Systems formula. We should have done so in 1997.
China's word on Hong Kong was that it was an integral part of China extracted by force. I'm not sure holding them to their word would have delivered a different result.
We've reached the Freedom Fries stage. Good to have the marker.
I just want China to cede back control of Hong Kong, for perpetuity.
Why? We had it in perpetuity before. Our Foreign Office would just find a way to cede it back.
We didn't, we had it on a 99 year leasehold, I want it back as a freehold.
To be exact, we had Hong Kong Island and Kowloon Peninsula in perpetuity, and the mainland part of it on a 99 year leasehold.
Yes. We should have held the Chinese to their word.
Personally, though, I think it's probably gone for good. But we can have Hong Kongers without Hong Kong. We should give Hong Kong ID card holders UK citizenship if they want it, certainly if China breaks the One Country Two Systems formula. We should have done so in 1997.
The Labour party threatened all kinds of things over the rumour that John Major was considering handing out 100s of thousands of UK passports to Hong Kong people.
Apparently they were the wrong kind of (potential) immigrants.
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
See America, Fox and the GOP. If your party has its own channel, it can have its own facts. The war is not against the MSM but against the very concept of truth.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
The cure is to raise the game.
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
But most people who decry the MSM are not looking for facts. They're looking for validation of the mush in their head.
Well, I am looking for facts. And there are quite a few people who are as well. Hence ArsTechnica being a good business etc.
I am sure you are. And of course many others. All power to you. But that is not the template for MSM haters. I'd draw a comparison with intelligent, humane and knowledgeable Leavers. There are plenty of them too, some on here, but they are nevertheless highly unrepresentative of the breed.
You should look at some the surveys of beliefs of anti-vaxers - might surprise you.
But to the main point - you can't fight back by saying "Our opponents are morally wrong to point out our mistakes"
The Catholic church tried that for centuries, for example. It hasn't worked.
If you want to have a reputation for accuracy, you have to earn it. Demanding a reputation doesn't work.
Hang Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize on your wall, if you like. But you will be judged for it.
I'm not saying it's wrong to point out (the many) mistakes in the MSM. It isn't. It's completely right to do so. What I'm saying is that those who are forever accusing the MSM of fake news - and especially if they use that phrase - are almost without exception softheads and nutters. This makes it more difficult than it should be for people like you - rational critics of the MSM - to be heard. The smearers of the MSM are a bigger menace to you, to me, than the MSM is.
What would surprise me about the views of anti-vaxers? Not sure I follow what you're getting at there.
The biggest menace to the MSM is the MSM. Every time the publish a story with obvious mistakes they are enabling the nutters.
C'mon. These people are not "enabled" by media mistakes. They don't need mistakes at all. They use the "fake news" slur indiscriminately. It has nothing to do with whether something is true or not. Only whether it goes against their warped extremist views. If it does QED it's fake. It's a total disgrace how they carry on.
As is what you say here. Imagine somebody being relentlessly bullied who also happens to make mistakes in life. Then you come along and you tell the victim that it's their fault. By making mistakes they are enabling the bullies. You see how this is not the way to go?
Imagine your job is to present facts. Then someone comes along and points out your mistakes. Is that bullying?
The lawyer, who recently participated in convicting a woman under a law that doesn't exist - is criticising that bullying?
The policeman who threaten to fit up someone - is the problem filming him doing it? Is that bullying? Or is it his fault?
The banker who lost their shirts in 2008 - their job was to manage money. Is critiquing them bullying? Or is their fault?
CNN, for example, were very keep on the idea that they, a multi-billion dollar organsiation were being hounded by people in their pyjamas.
Not at all. All of that is valid and necessary criticism.
But take the lawyer. If a bunch of rabid nutters are going around demonizing the legal profession for no good reason at all, is it acceptable or correct to say that a particular crooked and incompetent lawyer is "enabling" them.
No - because the nutters would do it anyway.
See?
I suspect we are making different points. I agree with yours. I think on reflection you will agree with mine.
Love how @HYUFD continues to love to speak for the white working class of the North and the Midlands from his middle class part of Essex. Champagne working class as it were.
He also tells us there is nothing wrong with the local mosque belting out the call to prayer through a PA system when his 'local' mosque is 20 miles away.
We do have church bells here, the Muslim population is a tiny fraction of that in East London so less demand
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
See America, Fox and the GOP. If your party has its own channel, it can have its own facts. The war is not against the MSM but against the very concept of truth.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
The cure is to raise the game.
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
But most people who decry the MSM are not looking for facts. They're looking for validation of the mush in their head.
Well, I am looking for facts. And there are quite a few people who are as well. Hence ArsTechnica being a good business etc.
I am sure you are. And of course many others. All power to you. But that is not the template for MSM haters. I'd draw a comparison with intelligent, humane and knowledgeable Leavers. There are plenty of them too, some on here, but they are nevertheless highly unrepresentative of the breed.
You should look at some the surveys of beliefs of anti-vaxers - might surprise you.
But to the main point - you can't fight back by saying "Our opponents are morally wrong to point out our mistakes"
The Catholic church tried that for centuries, for example. It hasn't worked.
If you want to have a reputation for accuracy, you have to earn it. Demanding a reputation doesn't work.
Hang Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize on your wall, if you like. But you will be judged for it.
I'm not saying it's wrong to point out (the many) mistakes in the MSM. It isn't. It's completely right to do so. What I'm saying is that those who are forever accusing the MSM of fake news - and especially if they use that phrase - are almost without exception softheads and nutters. This makes it more difficult than it should be for people like you - rational critics of the MSM - to be heard. The smearers of the MSM are a bigger menace to you, to me, than the MSM is.
What would surprise me about the views of anti-vaxers? Not sure I follow what you're getting at there.
Its not so much it is fake news but that any time the press write about a subject you know a fair amount about you find them so hideously wrong about everything that it is more or less misinformation. Frankly if a journalist told me it was raining these days I would insist on checking for myself.
If when they talk about things I know about they are so ill informed I can only assume that when they are talking about something I know nothing about they are probably just as ill informed and I would be better off ignoring anything they say as its likely claptrap.
Really? I can't say I find that myself. It could be that I have little expertise in anything (which is true) or it could be I tend to read quality publications (also true). Certainly if I have a skim through, say, the Sun or the Mirror I will feel as you do. Which is why I rarely do.
I work in IT, even the times manages to get most things about it completely wrong, the bbc even more so. They are both dire and the rest are generally even worse. Why should I then believe they do a better job at anything else.
A good example of their idiocy was that letter signed by all those professors about the virus....only most were grad students and even the professors were in subjects that had nothing to do with biology let alone virology.
In my view anyone who pays any attention on any subject to anything the MSM have to say is asking to be given their information as filtered by dunces. These days I find it much better to visit specialist websites for all the information I need.
For example I will check out the register, techdirt, ars technica, wired for information on it related stuff. For general politics I will come here as my main site and read a couple of others.
Frankly that probably makes me about 10 times as informed as people that rely on the tv news, Times, Guardian etc.
MSM is not fit for purpose and hopefully will goto the wall before long
What is your desired replacement? The media are amateurs. However, government information services are also amateurs. Where do we think the general politics news stories on this site come from - Mars? Generally from the m***a.
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
See America, Fox and the GOP. If your party has its own channel, it can have its own facts. The war is not against the MSM but against the very concept of truth.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
The cure is to raise the game.
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
But most people who decry the MSM are not looking for facts. They're looking for validation of the mush in their head.
Well, I am looking for facts. And there are quite a few people who are as well. Hence ArsTechnica being a good business etc.
I am sure you are. And of course many others. All power to you. But that is not the template for MSM haters. I'd draw a comparison with intelligent, humane and knowledgeable Leavers. There are plenty of them too, some on here, but they are nevertheless highly unrepresentative of the breed.
You should look at some the surveys of beliefs of anti-vaxers - might surprise you.
But to the main point - you can't fight back by saying "Our opponents are morally wrong to point out our mistakes"
The Catholic church tried that for centuries, for example. It hasn't worked.
If you want to have a reputation for accuracy, you have to earn it. Demanding a reputation doesn't work.
Hang Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize on your wall, if you like. But you will be judged for it.
I'm not saying it's wrong to point out (the many) mistakes in the MSM. It isn't. It's completely right to do so. What I'm saying is that those who are forever accusing the MSM of fake news - and especially if they use that phrase - are almost without exception softheads and nutters. This makes it more difficult than it should be for people like you - rational critics of the MSM - to be heard. The smearers of the MSM are a bigger menace to you, to me, than the MSM is.
What would surprise me about the views of anti-vaxers? Not sure I follow what you're getting at there.
Its not so much it is fake news but that any time the press write about a subject you know a fair amount about you find them so hideously wrong about everything that it is more or less misinformation. Frankly if a journalist told me it was raining these days I would insist on checking for myself.
If when they talk about things I know about they are so ill informed I can only assume that when they are talking about something I know nothing about they are probably just as ill informed and I would be better off ignoring anything they say as its likely claptrap.
Really? I can't say I find that myself. It could be that I have little expertise in anything (which is true) or it could be I tend to read quality publications (also true). Certainly if I have a skim through, say, the Sun or the Mirror I will feel as you do. Which is why I rarely do.
I work in IT, even the times manages to get most things about it completely wrong, the bbc even more so. They are both dire and the rest are generally even worse. Why should I then believe they do a better job at anything else.
A good example of their idiocy was that letter signed by all those professors about the virus....only most were grad students and even the professors were in subjects that had nothing to do with biology let alone virology.
In my view anyone who pays any attention on any subject to anything the MSM have to say is asking to be given their information as filtered by dunces. These days I find it much better to visit specialist websites for all the information I need.
For example I will check out the register, techdirt, ars technica, wired for information on it related stuff. For general politics I will come here as my main site and read a couple of others.
Frankly that probably makes me about 10 times as informed as people that rely on the tv news, Times, Guardian etc.
MSM is not fit for purpose and hopefully will goto the wall before long
I am an IT professional - generally major media stories get at least one thing wrong.
I am also a professional in the field of Operations Research - stories that touch on that are usually badly wrong.
I work in finance - but not a subject matter trained expert. A recent story in the FT was something I knew about directly. In the three sentences they made 4 errors of fact. This was something that was re-casting a press release...
I have serious hobby interests in engineering, chemistry, physics, cryptography & military history - stories on these generally have major errors,
Politics around the world is a hobby. The mistakes the UK media makes about even US politics are staggering.
At some point you have to wonder if their stories on who will win the Oscars are bollocks as well... Where's Woger?
WFH will absolutely carry on because it will have to. As has been pointed out at length this is a serious problem for all the businesses who make their money from people commuting to an office - builders, landlords, cleaners, train companies, expensive coffee, Pret etc etc.
We've reached the Freedom Fries stage. Good to have the marker.
I just want China to cede back control of Hong Kong, for perpetuity.
Why? We had it in perpetuity before. Our Foreign Office would just find a way to cede it back.
We didn't, we had it on a 99 year leasehold, I want it back as a freehold.
To be exact, we had Hong Kong Island and Kowloon Peninsula in perpetuity, and the mainland part of it on a 99 year leasehold.
Yes. We should have held the Chinese to their word.
Personally, though, I think it's probably gone for good. But we can have Hong Kongers without Hong Kong. We should give Hong Kong ID card holders UK citizenship if they want it, certainly if China breaks the One Country Two Systems formula. We should have done so in 1997.
The Labour party threatened all kinds of things over the rumour that John Major was considering handing out 100s of thousands of UK passports to Hong Kong people.
Apparently they were the wrong kind of (potential) immigrants.
'Apparently'?
I'm sure after a jaunt through the concept of unreliable media you can give chapter and verse on this being the actual case.
We've reached the Freedom Fries stage. Good to have the marker.
I just want China to cede back control of Hong Kong, for perpetuity.
Why? We had it in perpetuity before. Our Foreign Office would just find a way to cede it back.
We didn't, we had it on a 99 year leasehold, I want it back as a freehold.
To be exact, we had Hong Kong Island and Kowloon Peninsula in perpetuity, and the mainland part of it on a 99 year leasehold.
Yes. We should have held the Chinese to their word.
Personally, though, I think it's probably gone for good. But we can have Hong Kongers without Hong Kong. We should give Hong Kong ID card holders UK citizenship if they want it, certainly if China breaks the One Country Two Systems formula. We should have done so in 1997.
The Labour party threatened all kinds of things over the rumour that John Major was considering handing out 100s of thousands of UK passports to Hong Kong people.
Apparently they were the wrong kind of (potential) immigrants.
Michael Howard's refusal to offer passports was endorsed by Jack Straw.
I wouldn't just stop buying chinese phones. I'd stop buying anything Chinese.
Without making a song and dance about it I will be avoiding buying anything from China. I think their live markets are vile and this was clearly a disaster waiting to happen and when it did happen I do believe they tried to cover it up and lie about the scale of it. Won't be rewarding that behaviour I'm afraid.
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
See America, Fox and the GOP. If your party has its own channel, it can have its own facts. The war is not against the MSM but against the very concept of truth.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
The cure is to raise the game.
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
But most people who decry the MSM are not looking for facts. They're looking for validation of the mush in their head.
Well, I am looking for facts. And there are quite a few people who are as well. Hence ArsTechnica being a good business etc.
I am sure you are. And of course many others. All power to you. But that is not the template for MSM haters. I'd draw a comparison with intelligent, humane and knowledgeable Leavers. There are plenty of them too, some on here, but they are nevertheless highly unrepresentative of the breed.
You should look at some the surveys of beliefs of anti-vaxers - might surprise you.
But to the main point - you can't fight back by saying "Our opponents are morally wrong to point out our mistakes"
The Catholic church tried that for centuries, for example. It hasn't worked.
If you want to have a reputation for accuracy, you have to earn it. Demanding a reputation doesn't work.
Hang Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize on your wall, if you like. But you will be judged for it.
I'm not saying it's wrong to point out (the many) mistakes in the MSM. It isn't. It's completely right to do so. What I'm saying is that those who are forever accusing the MSM of fake news - and especially if they use that phrase - are almost without exception softheads and nutters. This makes it more difficult than it should be for people like you - rational critics of the MSM - to be heard. The smearers of the MSM are a bigger menace to you, to me, than the MSM is.
What would surprise me about the views of anti-vaxers? Not sure I follow what you're getting at there.
Its not so much it is fake news but that any time the press write about a subject you know a fair amount about you find them so hideously wrong about everything that it is more or less misinformation. Frankly if a journalist told me it was raining these days I would insist on checking for myself.
If when they talk about things I know about they are so ill informed I can only assume that when they are talking about something I know nothing about they are probably just as ill informed and I would be better off ignoring anything they say as its likely claptrap.
Really? I can't say I find that myself. It could be that I have little expertise in anything (which is true) or it could be I tend to read quality publications (also true). Certainly if I have a skim through, say, the Sun or the Mirror I will feel as you do. Which is why I rarely do.
I work in IT, even the times manages to get most things about it completely wrong, the bbc even more so. They are both dire and the rest are generally even worse. Why should I then believe they do a better job at anything else.
A good example of their idiocy was that letter signed by all those professors about the virus....only most were grad students and even the professors were in subjects that had nothing to do with biology let alone virology.
In my view anyone who pays any attention on any subject to anything the MSM have to say is asking to be given their information as filtered by dunces. These days I find it much better to visit specialist websites for all the information I need.
For example I will check out the register, techdirt, ars technica, wired for information on it related stuff. For general politics I will come here as my main site and read a couple of others.
Frankly that probably makes me about 10 times as informed as people that rely on the tv news, Times, Guardian etc.
MSM is not fit for purpose and hopefully will goto the wall before long
What is your desired replacement? The media are amateurs. However, government information services are also amateurs. Where do we think the general politics news stories on this site come from - Mars? Generally from the m***a.
The same as is happening now blogger seem to be doing a damn site better at rooting out stories, researching them , checking facts and getting information right. Also more specialised news sites.
Yes you obviously have to take care working out which bloggers are doing a good job and avoid those like Novara Media however you had to do that with the MSM once upon a time however now the MSM just threw out standards and aren't worth bothering about.
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
See America, Fox and the GOP. If your party has its own channel, it can have its own facts. The war is not against the MSM but against the very concept of truth.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
The cure is to raise the game.
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
But most people who decry the MSM are not looking for facts. They're looking for validation of the mush in their head.
Well, I am looking for facts. And there are quite a few people who are as well. Hence ArsTechnica being a good business etc.
I am sure you are. And of course many others. All power to you. But that is not the template for MSM haters. I'd draw a comparison with intelligent, humane and knowledgeable Leavers. There are plenty of them too, some on here, but they are nevertheless highly unrepresentative of the breed.
You should look at some the surveys of beliefs of anti-vaxers - might surprise you.
But to the main point - you can't fight back by saying "Our opponents are morally wrong to point out our mistakes"
The Catholic church tried that for centuries, for example. It hasn't worked.
If you want to have a reputation for accuracy, you have to earn it. Demanding a reputation doesn't work.
Hang Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize on your wall, if you like. But you will be judged for it.
I'm not saying it's wrong to point out (the many) mistakes in the MSM. It isn't. It's completely right to do so. What I'm saying is that those who are forever accusing the MSM of fake news - and especially if they use that phrase - are almost without exception softheads and nutters. This makes it more difficult than it should be for people like you - rational critics of the MSM - to be heard. The smearers of the MSM are a bigger menace to you, to me, than the MSM is.
What would surprise me about the views of anti-vaxers? Not sure I follow what you're getting at there.
Its not so much it is fake news but that any time the press write about a subject you know a fair amount about you find them so hideously wrong about everything that it is more or less misinformation. Frankly if a journalist told me it was raining these days I would insist on checking for myself.
If when they talk about things I know about they are so ill informed I can only assume that when they are talking about something I know nothing about they are probably just as ill informed and I would be better off ignoring anything they say as its likely claptrap.
Really? I can't say I find that myself. It could be that I have little expertise in anything (which is true) or it could be I tend to read quality publications (also true). Certainly if I have a skim through, say, the Sun or the Mirror I will feel as you do. Which is why I rarely do.
I work in IT, even the times manages to get most things about it completely wrong, the bbc even more so. They are both dire and the rest are generally even worse. Why should I then believe they do a better job at anything else.
A good example of their idiocy was that letter signed by all those professors about the virus....only most were grad students and even the professors were in subjects that had nothing to do with biology let alone virology.
In my view anyone who pays any attention on any subject to anything the MSM have to say is asking to be given their information as filtered by dunces. These days I find it much better to visit specialist websites for all the information I need.
For example I will check out the register, techdirt, ars technica, wired for information on it related stuff. For general politics I will come here as my main site and read a couple of others.
Frankly that probably makes me about 10 times as informed as people that rely on the tv news, Times, Guardian etc.
MSM is not fit for purpose and hopefully will goto the wall before long
I am an IT professional - generally major media stories get at least one thing wrong.
I am also a professional in the field of Operations Research - stories that touch on that are usually badly wrong.
I work in finance - but not a subject matter trained expert. A recent story in the FT was something I knew about directly. In the three sentences they made 4 errors of fact. This was something that was re-casting a press release...
I have serious hobby interests in engineering, chemistry, physics, cryptography & military history - stories on these generally have major errors,
Politics around the world is a hobby. The mistakes the UK media makes about even US politics are staggering.
At some point you have to wonder if their stories on who will win the Oscars are bollocks as well... Where's Woger?
Precisely my point, if you always find major errors on things you know about how can you believe everything else they write isn't similarly riddled with inaccuracy, misunderstanding and downright falsehood
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
See America, Fox and the GOP. If your party has its own channel, it can have its own facts. The war is not against the MSM but against the very concept of truth.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
The cure is to raise the game.
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
But most people who decry the MSM are not looking for facts. They're looking for validation of the mush in their head.
Well, I am looking for facts. And there are quite a few people who are as well. Hence ArsTechnica being a good business etc.
I am sure you are. And of course many others. All power to you. But that is not the template for MSM haters. I'd draw a comparison with intelligent, humane and knowledgeable Leavers. There are plenty of them too, some on here, but they are nevertheless highly unrepresentative of the breed.
You should look at some the surveys of beliefs of anti-vaxers - might surprise you.
But to the main point - you can't fight back by saying "Our opponents are morally wrong to point out our mistakes"
The Catholic church tried that for centuries, for example. It hasn't worked.
If you want to have a reputation for accuracy, you have to earn it. Demanding a reputation doesn't work.
Hang Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize on your wall, if you like. But you will be judged for it.
I'm not saying it's wrong to point out (the many) mistakes in the MSM. It isn't. It's completely right to do so. What I'm saying is that those who are forever accusing the MSM of fake news - and especially if they use that phrase - are almost without exception softheads and nutters. This makes it more difficult than it should be for people like you - rational critics of the MSM - to be heard. The smearers of the MSM are a bigger menace to you, to me, than the MSM is.
What would surprise me about the views of anti-vaxers? Not sure I follow what you're getting at there.
Its not so much it is fake news but that any time the press write about a subject you know a fair amount about you find them so hideously wrong about everything that it is more or less misinformation. Frankly if a journalist told me it was raining these days I would insist on checking for myself.
If when they talk about things I know about they are so ill informed I can only assume that when they are talking about something I know nothing about they are probably just as ill informed and I would be better off ignoring anything they say as its likely claptrap.
Really? I can't say I find that myself. It could be that I have little expertise in anything (which is true) or it could be I tend to read quality publications (also true). Certainly if I have a skim through, say, the Sun or the Mirror I will feel as you do. Which is why I rarely do.
I work in IT, even the times manages to get most things about it completely wrong, the bbc even more so. They are both dire and the rest are generally even worse. Why should I then believe they do a better job at anything else.
A good example of their idiocy was that letter signed by all those professors about the virus....only most were grad students and even the professors were in subjects that had nothing to do with biology let alone virology.
In my view anyone who pays any attention on any subject to anything the MSM have to say is asking to be given their information as filtered by dunces. These days I find it much better to visit specialist websites for all the information I need.
For example I will check out the register, techdirt, ars technica, wired for information on it related stuff. For general politics I will come here as my main site and read a couple of others.
Frankly that probably makes me about 10 times as informed as people that rely on the tv news, Times, Guardian etc.
MSM is not fit for purpose and hopefully will goto the wall before long
What is your desired replacement? The media are amateurs. However, government information services are also amateurs. Where do we think the general politics news stories on this site come from - Mars? Generally from the m***a.
The thing is that it never used to matter as getting accurate information was until the Internet impossible. It's only now the internet is everywhere that the poor quality of most journalism and their inability to actually do research or think has become obvious.
Precisely my point, if you always find major errors on things you know about how can you believe everything else they write isn't similarly riddled with inaccuracy, misunderstanding and downright falsehood
I stopped reading the economist 25 years ago for exactly that reason.
The Financial Times is reporting that thousands of UK office staff working from home are unlikely to return to their place of work anytime soon.
If you don't need to, why expose yourself to unnecessary risk? Especially if you commute by public transport.
I expect to be WFH until at least the Autumn.
A few of my clients have already suggested taking less space in future, as some people WFH never return to office work, or cumulatively work fewer office hours.
I wait to see if the trickle becomes a flood, but I wouldn't be wholly surprised.
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
See America, Fox and the GOP. If your party has its own channel, it can have its own facts. The war is not against the MSM but against the very concept of truth.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
The cure is to raise the game.
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
But most people who decry the MSM are not looking for facts. They're looking for validation of the mush in their head.
Well, I am looking for facts. And there are quite a few people who are as well. Hence ArsTechnica being a good business etc.
I am sure you are. And of course many others. All power to you. But that is not the template for MSM haters. I'd draw a comparison with intelligent, humane and knowledgeable Leavers. There are plenty of them too, some on here, but they are nevertheless highly unrepresentative of the breed.
You should look at some the surveys of beliefs of anti-vaxers - might surprise you.
But to the main point - you can't fight back by saying "Our opponents are morally wrong to point out our mistakes"
The Catholic church tried that for centuries, for example. It hasn't worked.
If you want to have a reputation for accuracy, you have to earn it. Demanding a reputation doesn't work.
Hang Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize on your wall, if you like. But you will be judged for it.
I'm not saying it's wrong to point out (the many) mistakes in the MSM. It isn't. It's completely right to do so. What I'm saying is that those who are forever accusing the MSM of fake news - and especially if they use that phrase - are almost without exception softheads and nutters. This makes it more difficult than it should be for people like you - rational critics of the MSM - to be heard. The smearers of the MSM are a bigger menace to you, to me, than the MSM is.
What would surprise me about the views of anti-vaxers? Not sure I follow what you're getting at there.
Its not so much it is fake news but that any time the press write about a subject you know a fair amount about you find them so hideously wrong about everything that it is more or less misinformation. Frankly if a journalist told me it was raining these days I would insist on checking for myself.
If when they talk about things I know about they are so ill informed I can only assume that when they are talking about something I know nothing about they are probably just as ill informed and I would be better off ignoring anything they say as its likely claptrap.
Really? I can't say I find that myself. It could be that I have little expertise in anything (which is true) or it could be I tend to read quality publications (also true). Certainly if I have a skim through, say, the Sun or the Mirror I will feel as you do. Which is why I rarely do.
I work in IT, even the times manages to get most things about it completely wrong, the bbc even more so. They are both dire and the rest are generally even worse. Why should I then believe they do a better job at anything else.
A good example of their idiocy was that letter signed by all those professors about the virus....only most were grad students and even the professors were in subjects that had nothing to do with biology let alone virology.
In my view anyone who pays any attention on any subject to anything the MSM have to say is asking to be given their information as filtered by dunces. These days I find it much better to visit specialist websites for all the information I need.
For example I will check out the register, techdirt, ars technica, wired for information on it related stuff. For general politics I will come here as my main site and read a couple of others.
Frankly that probably makes me about 10 times as informed as people that rely on the tv news, Times, Guardian etc.
MSM is not fit for purpose and hopefully will goto the wall before long
I am an IT professional - generally major media stories get at least one thing wrong.
I am also a professional in the field of Operations Research - stories that touch on that are usually badly wrong.
I work in finance - but not a subject matter trained expert. A recent story in the FT was something I knew about directly. In the three sentences they made 4 errors of fact. This was something that was re-casting a press release...
I have serious hobby interests in engineering, chemistry, physics, cryptography & military history - stories on these generally have major errors,
Politics around the world is a hobby. The mistakes the UK media makes about even US politics are staggering.
At some point you have to wonder if their stories on who will win the Oscars are bollocks as well... Where's Woger?
Newspapers get things wrong, as do radio and TV but mostly they are trying. Decrying 'MSM' as Trump supporters do implies that the non-mainstream peripheral media (Infowars, Breitbart, Fox News?) is fair and factual. That's patently rubbish.
We've reached the Freedom Fries stage. Good to have the marker.
I just want China to cede back control of Hong Kong, for perpetuity.
Why? We had it in perpetuity before. Our Foreign Office would just find a way to cede it back.
We didn't, we had it on a 99 year leasehold, I want it back as a freehold.
To be exact, we had Hong Kong Island and Kowloon Peninsula in perpetuity, and the mainland part of it on a 99 year leasehold.
Yes. We should have held the Chinese to their word.
Personally, though, I think it's probably gone for good. But we can have Hong Kongers without Hong Kong. We should give Hong Kong ID card holders UK citizenship if they want it, certainly if China breaks the One Country Two Systems formula. We should have done so in 1997.
The Labour party threatened all kinds of things over the rumour that John Major was considering handing out 100s of thousands of UK passports to Hong Kong people.
Apparently they were the wrong kind of (potential) immigrants.
'Apparently'?
I'm sure after a jaunt through the concept of unreliable media you can give chapter and verse on this being the actual case.
He's talking nonsense. The refusal to offer passports to Hong Kong citizens was a policy conceived by the then Home Secretary Michael Howard, albeit endorsed by the Labour opposition.
What's the end game of demonising the UK media? Has anybody in Government, i.e. the one man who is actually the government, thought of the long-term consequences? It would not be so difficult for a future Labour government to create a captive state media alternative to the BBC and to regulate Twitter and Facebook into submission.
See America, Fox and the GOP. If your party has its own channel, it can have its own facts. The war is not against the MSM but against the very concept of truth.
Yes. I'm afraid this is often the case. If those who routinely shout about "fake news!" in the dreaded "MSM" were instead turning to a plethora of intellectually rigorous, unbiased and well researched alternative outlets/sources, that would be fine and dandy. But they're not. They tend to be staggeringly dumb units, easily led, gorging on a diet of utter drivel. It's a real worry.
The cure is to raise the game.
Not to say "so what to" when their reputation for facts looks like this -
But most people who decry the MSM are not looking for facts. They're looking for validation of the mush in their head.
Well, I am looking for facts. And there are quite a few people who are as well. Hence ArsTechnica being a good business etc.
I am sure you are. And of course many others. All power to you. But that is not the template for MSM haters. I'd draw a comparison with intelligent, humane and knowledgeable Leavers. There are plenty of them too, some on here, but they are nevertheless highly unrepresentative of the breed.
You should look at some the surveys of beliefs of anti-vaxers - might surprise you.
But to the main point - you can't fight back by saying "Our opponents are morally wrong to point out our mistakes"
The Catholic church tried that for centuries, for example. It hasn't worked.
If you want to have a reputation for accuracy, you have to earn it. Demanding a reputation doesn't work.
Hang Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize on your wall, if you like. But you will be judged for it.
I'm not saying it's wrong to point out (the many) mistakes in the MSM. It isn't. It's completely right to do so. What I'm saying is that those who are forever accusing the MSM of fake news - and especially if they use that phrase - are almost without exception softheads and nutters. This makes it more difficult than it should be for people like you - rational critics of the MSM - to be heard. The smearers of the MSM are a bigger menace to you, to me, than the MSM is.
What would surprise me about the views of anti-vaxers? Not sure I follow what you're getting at there.
Its not so much it is fake news but that any time the press write about a subject you know a fair amount about you find them so hideously wrong about everything that it is more or less misinformation. Frankly if a journalist told me it was raining these days I would insist on checking for myself.
If when they talk about things I know about they are so ill informed I can only assume that when they are talking about something I know nothing about they are probably just as ill informed and I would be better off ignoring anything they say as its likely claptrap.
Really? I can't say I find that myself. It could be that I have little expertise in anything (which is true) or it could be I tend to read quality publications (also true). Certainly if I have a skim through, say, the Sun or the Mirror I will feel as you do. Which is why I rarely do.
I work in IT, even the times manages to get most things about it completely wrong, the bbc even more so. They are both dire and the rest are generally even worse. Why should I then believe they do a better job at anything else.
A good example of their idiocy was that letter signed by all those professors about the virus....only most were grad students and even the professors were in subjects that had nothing to do with biology let alone virology.
In my view anyone who pays any attention on any subject to anything the MSM have to say is asking to be given their information as filtered by dunces. These days I find it much better to visit specialist websites for all the information I need.
For example I will check out the register, techdirt, ars technica, wired for information on it related stuff. For general politics I will come here as my main site and read a couple of others.
Frankly that probably makes me about 10 times as informed as people that rely on the tv news, Times, Guardian etc.
MSM is not fit for purpose and hopefully will goto the wall before long
I am an IT professional - generally major media stories get at least one thing wrong.
I am also a professional in the field of Operations Research - stories that touch on that are usually badly wrong.
I work in finance - but not a subject matter trained expert. A recent story in the FT was something I knew about directly. In the three sentences they made 4 errors of fact. This was something that was re-casting a press release...
I have serious hobby interests in engineering, chemistry, physics, cryptography & military history - stories on these generally have major errors,
Politics around the world is a hobby. The mistakes the UK media makes about even US politics are staggering.
At some point you have to wonder if their stories on who will win the Oscars are bollocks as well... Where's Woger?
Newspapers get things wrong, as do radio and TV but mostly they are trying. Decrying 'MSM' as Trump supporters do implies that the non-mainstream peripheral media (Infowars, Breitbart, Fox News?) is fair and factual. That's patently rubbish.
I don't think anyone claimed they are factual. Decrying the MSM for being slapdash and usually wrong does not imply support for sites that are equally non factual
We've reached the Freedom Fries stage. Good to have the marker.
I just want China to cede back control of Hong Kong, for perpetuity.
Why? We had it in perpetuity before. Our Foreign Office would just find a way to cede it back.
We didn't, we had it on a 99 year leasehold, I want it back as a freehold.
To be exact, we had Hong Kong Island and Kowloon Peninsula in perpetuity, and the mainland part of it on a 99 year leasehold.
Yes. We should have held the Chinese to their word.
Personally, though, I think it's probably gone for good. But we can have Hong Kongers without Hong Kong. We should give Hong Kong ID card holders UK citizenship if they want it, certainly if China breaks the One Country Two Systems formula. We should have done so in 1997.
China's word on Hong Kong was that it was an integral part of China extracted by force. I'm not sure holding them to their word would have delivered a different result.
The problem was that without the mainland Kowloon and the Island would not be viable. The power and water supplies were too integrated.
Thatcher, in 1982 and flushed with success from the Falklands War, proposed to Deng that this meant the entire colony should stay with Britain.
Deng replies if that was her attitude he would simply reoccupy it immediately using force. He claimed had only not done so before because he had expected the British to keep their word on returning it.
Thatcher, not being stupid and realising the PLA were an altogether different proposition from the Argentines, realised the position was hopeless. So she agreed a handover over of the whole lot on the One Country, Two Systems basis.
The Financial Times is reporting that thousands of UK office staff working from home are unlikely to return to their place of work anytime soon.
If you don't need to, why expose yourself to unnecessary risk? Especially if you commute by public transport.
I expect to be WFH until at least the Autumn.
A few of my clients have already suggested taking less space in future, as some people WFH never return to office work, or cumulatively work fewer office hours.
I wait to see if the trickle becomes a flood, but I wouldn't be wholly surprised.
If there's no vaccine and social distancing has to remain in place for the near future then we've worked out we can only accommodate 60% of our employees at any one time, and that's with using meeting rooms, presentational halls etc.
So we think circa 40% of staff will have to work from home or we take on additional office space.
Deaths in Italy jumped up in today's update. But Lombardia included in the tally 282 extra hospitals deaths reported by municipalities in their monthly communication. They are for the whole month of April.
Comments
Care homes won't be going anywhere.
We handed back the island even though it was ours forever.
https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1256599517014695936?s=21
Don't you think that's extraordinary. A smaller share of voters than Romney.
Train companies and other businesses servicing the needs of all the non-existent commuters will self-evidently be completely screwed because of this, but in other respects it increases efficiency and wealth. So why shouldn't it just go on and on?
It is the rustbelt the Democrats need to win to beat Trump
It's a coup!!
Palace coup?
Edit, damn beaten to it. Of course.
Everyone pick a side, establishment or revolutionaries
I absolutely stand with *checks to see if OGH/TSE around* the new order.
Oh crap, I forgot the crown prince!
As is what you say here. Imagine somebody being relentlessly bullied who also happens to make mistakes in life. Then you come along and you tell the victim that it's their fault. By making mistakes they are enabling the bullies. You see how this is not the way to go?
In the US, travel across state lines will return fairly quickly. Holidays will happen, just - mostly as now - staying in country.
In Europe, Schengen will slowly return. First in places like Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, where it's simply too expensive not to exist. Then among neighbouring countries which both have things under control. Simply, it's too expensive not to allow the relatively free movement of goods and people among many of the European countries.
Germans will probably drive to holidays in Southern Europe rather than fly (and that's bad for Greece, but probably good for the Northern touristy bits of Italy and Spain).
What will take a longer time to return will be airplanes, because there will be a natural and understandable suspicion that a large number of people who spend hours in a metal box coming from far away might end up all infecting themselves.
But if you assume that - three years from now - we have a working vaccine, reasonable treatments, and a large number of people who have already had it, and therefore have at least partial immunity, then why wouldn't tourism return? Brits will still want sunshine and skiing. Chinese and Japanese will still want to see Big Ben. American businessmen will still want to sell Australian ones.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/?_ga=2.77846484.1753798399.1588260431-1445263436.1586350960
Here's the important graphs regarding tests from it:
90% of that is heck all.
President Trump won because Hillary Clinton was a monumentally poor candidate who went down like a bucket of cold sick in the Midwest.
Next weekend I'm publishing a thread entitled 'Why have Republicans only won the popular vote once in the last seven Presidential elections?'
Is it really sustainable when the winning side keeps on the losing the election?
So, he's enthusing those that are left, while driving out others from the party.
If when they talk about things I know about they are so ill informed I can only assume that when they are talking about something I know nothing about they are probably just as ill informed and I would be better off ignoring anything they say as its likely claptrap.
Or does it mean that Biden is not Hillary?
I'm going for the second, but feel free to go for the first if you like.
Sign me up. Ho ho ho. Now I've got a pineapple.....
The lawyer, who recently participated in convicting a woman under a law that doesn't exist - is criticising that bullying?
The policeman who threaten to fit up someone - is the problem filming him doing it? Is that bullying? Or is it his fault?
The banker who lost their shirts in 2008 - their job was to manage money. Is critiquing them bullying? Or is their fault?
CNN, for example, were very keep on the idea that they, a multi-billion dollar organsiation were being hounded by people in their pyjamas.
But I would still point out that Ms Clinton had negatives up the wazoo. And lots of reliably Democratic voters stayed home rather than going out to vote for her.
Personally, though, I think it's probably gone for good. But we can have Hong Kongers without Hong Kong. We should give Hong Kong ID card holders UK citizenship if they want it, certainly if China breaks the One Country Two Systems formula. We should have done so in 1997.
I require therapy.
His solution, which again was not unreasonable as a compromise to escape a knotty problem, was One Country, Two Systems.
The problem is that the Chinese, and especially Xi, have not kept to it.
North Essex is posh, Home Counties middle class as is Chelmsford.
Harlow, Basildon, Thurrock and the Essex coast are mainly working class
A good example of their idiocy was that letter signed by all those professors about the virus....only most were grad students and even the professors were in subjects that had nothing to do with biology let alone virology.
In my view anyone who pays any attention on any subject to anything the MSM have to say is asking to be given their information as filtered by dunces. These days I find it much better to visit specialist websites for all the information I need.
For example I will check out the register, techdirt, ars technica, wired for information on it related stuff. For general politics I will come here as my main site and read a couple of others.
Frankly that probably makes me about 10 times as informed as people that rely on the tv news, Times, Guardian etc.
MSM is not fit for purpose and hopefully will goto the wall before long
Apparently they were the wrong kind of (potential) immigrants.
But take the lawyer. If a bunch of rabid nutters are going around demonizing the legal profession for no good reason at all, is it acceptable or correct to say that a particular crooked and incompetent lawyer is "enabling" them.
No - because the nutters would do it anyway.
See?
I suspect we are making different points. I agree with yours. I think on reflection you will agree with mine.
I expect to be WFH until at least the Autumn.
I am also a professional in the field of Operations Research - stories that touch on that are usually badly wrong.
I work in finance - but not a subject matter trained expert. A recent story in the FT was something I knew about directly. In the three sentences they made 4 errors of fact. This was something that was re-casting a press release...
I have serious hobby interests in engineering, chemistry, physics, cryptography & military history - stories on these generally have major errors,
Politics around the world is a hobby. The mistakes the UK media makes about even US politics are staggering.
At some point you have to wonder if their stories on who will win the Oscars are bollocks as well... Where's Woger?
And many of us will go stir crazy. It's day 46...
I'm sure after a jaunt through the concept of unreliable media you can give chapter and verse on this being the actual case.
Yes you obviously have to take care working out which bloggers are doing a good job and avoid those like Novara Media however you had to do that with the MSM once upon a time however now the MSM just threw out standards and aren't worth bothering about.
I am under 50 and will wear a face mask on the tube, if I was over 50 I might stick to WFH though
I wait to see if the trickle becomes a flood, but I wouldn't be wholly surprised.
Thatcher, in 1982 and flushed with success from the Falklands War, proposed to Deng that this meant the entire colony should stay with Britain.
Deng replies if that was her attitude he would simply reoccupy it immediately using force. He claimed had only not done so before because he had expected the British to keep their word on returning it.
Thatcher, not being stupid and realising the PLA were an altogether different proposition from the Argentines, realised the position was hopeless. So she agreed a handover over of the whole lot on the One Country, Two Systems basis.
So we think circa 40% of staff will have to work from home or we take on additional office space.
https://twitter.com/thestalwart/status/1256648867925446657?s=21