USA news & politics

[Ragey Erasmus]

What the **** is funny about this DH?

He just does it by default because he won't go further than 1 minute into a video or 1 line into an article (if he even decides to look at it at all) before dismissing it if it dares point out how any on the right can actually be monumental shits.

Something something "oh it's all sensationalist!" something something "nuance".

Will probably also laugh at the fact Republicans tried to put provision into their bill to make the Trump administration immune to contempt in court, have put in provision to strip millions of medicare and have begun making moves to make abortion illegal in all states.

Oh and once again attempting to oust people from supposedly non-political positions for not doing what Trump wants, demanding a partisan investigation into 2020, threatening to withhold funding to Democrat states, first use of the military domestically since the 70's, emptying California's reservoirs so the water used for irrigation is now gone, waging a trade war with the entire world... Nope all perfectly normal and laughable. All in only half a year too.

 

[dirty harry]

What the **** is funny about this DH?

Where do you want me to start? The inaccuracies? The hubris? Or the lies?

 

[dirty harry]

He just does it by default because he won't go further than 1 minute into a video or 1 line into an article (if he even decides to look at it at all) before dismissing it if it dares point out how any on the right can actually be monumental shits.

Something something "oh it's all sensationalist!" something something "nuance".

Will probably also laugh at the fact Republicans tried to put provision into their bill to make the Trump administration immune to contempt in court, have put in provision to strip millions of medicare and have begun making moves to make abortion illegal in all states.

Oh and once again attempting to oust people from supposedly non-political positions for not doing what Trump wants, demanding a partisan investigation into 2020, threatening to withhold funding to Democrat states, first use of the military domestically since the 70's, emptying California's reservoirs so the water used for irrigation is now gone, waging a trade war with the entire world... Nope all perfectly normal and laughable. All in only half a year too.

The irony is, that if ragey wasnt so cowardly he would have seen my comments above agreeing with his stance on Mamdani hahahah

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Where do you want me to start? The inaccuracies? The hubris? Or the lies?

Go on, list them

 

[dirty harry]

Go on, list them

OK let's start easy...

1. You would agree that the death threats to her, family and unborn child are disgraceful yes?

2. She never 'attempted to have an abortion'. Ectopic pregnancies are not considered an abortion on Floridas laws.

3. She didnt 'convince them to carry it out', she was forced to educate them to administer medication. She makes the claim that doctors had been scared by Democrats fear mongering, which could be argued backed up by the Florida health board in attempting to block Democrat adverts, both before, and after the event especially running up to Amendment 4 vote in November, in which Floridians voted against the amendment (by a very close 3% to be fair).

4. (A)There is no legal time limit for Ectopic pregnancy, as its not counted in the abortion law.
(B) the 6 week limit doesn't count when the life of the mother is in danger, which an ectopic pregnancy would certainly do, so before a rupture at 16 weeks (usual latest date) she would have still been eligible for life saving intervention.
(C) Infact i believe third trimester abortions are allowed in case of mothers risk of serious impairment or death.

5. She denies she had an abortion, because by the law she DID NOT HAVE AN ABORTION.

6. The law of Ectopic pregnancy are very clear, and was clarified on 1st May before her incident by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), who reiterated the statement Ectopic pregnancies aren't part of the law.

7. More of a question, which bill did she sponsor? She serves in the House of Representitives, not the Florida Legislature. The only thing I'm aware of is the 2025 survivors act.

8. Please explain why you skimmed a Huff post article and determined that was factual? Your righteous indignation in this case is ignorance and hubris. You think so little of this woman that you've probably never heard of, who shared her harrowing story and who's life is now under threat, due to a conflicting belief on abortion, in which people like you swallow lies and regurgitate them as fact.

It took me 5 minutes to read her statements in reaction to the 'journalism' about her interview, and a quick Google search on the specifics to determine this is incredibly bad faith take by most, as per.

And i dont blwdi align with her views on abortion, I say kill all the babies you want lol.

 

[ncurd]

This kind of headline is why the BBC is the pits these days. There is no bith sidings or nuance to this. The anti vax movement is complete anti science with zero evidence to things they claim. This isn't a bold claim of mine there is simply no peer reviewed studie outside the original Wakefield report which has been massively discredited.

It's frustrating because despite the content of the article it legitimise views.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Robert Kennedy Jr: Could he really revolutionise US healthcare?

The most powerful public health official in the US is reviled by some medics - but even some of his critics accept that he is bringing drive to healthcare areas that have long been neglected

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[McTallshort]

View attachment 23938
This kind of headline is why the BBC is the pits these days. There is no bith sidings or nuance to this. The anti vax movement is complete anti science with zero evidence to things they claim. This isn't a bold claim of mine there is simply no peer reviewed studie outside the original Wakefield report which has been massively discredited.

It's frustrating because despite the content of the article it legitimise views.

American politics thread?

 

[ncurd]

Well if you read it it doesn't really support RFK Jnr. Article posted in US Politics thread.

Thats my point though the headline is bad enough. It asserts there is nuance when there is none.

American politics thread?

My point has nothing to do with American politics but the state of BBC journalism.

 

[Saintjay]

Thats my point though the headline is bad enough. It asserts there is nuance when there is none.

My point has nothing to do with American politics but the state of BBC journalism.

I read the headline as asking a question of the reader. Elvis musical genius or creepy weirdo? Kind of thing

I think the BBC are relatively unbiased and impartial. Certainly more than some of the youtube channels posted here.

From the article I agree with the views on the American food industry etc. I don't agree with some of his other stuff. He's a high profile person from a high profile family. Personally I'd rather hear his views so I can form my own opinion rather than RFK being ignored and censored.

 

[dirty harry]

I read the headline as asking a question of the reader. Elvis musical genius or creepy weirdo? Kind of thing

I think the BBC are relatively unbiased and impartial. Certainly more than some of the youtube channels posted here.

From the article I agree with the views on the American food industry etc. I don't agree with some of his other stuff. He's a high profile person from a high profile family. Personally I'd rather hear his views so I can form my own opinion rather than RFK being ignored and censored.

I enjoyed reading that over breakfast, and it was a decent BBC peice. Not sure why anyone would question the BBC over a peice like this.

He's been a massive shot in the arm in the fight against health issues in the US unlike anything they've seen for a while, its desperately needed, but he is a flawed human being (which of us isnt).

To be hysterical and lambast the BBC about the headline is non sensical.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I read the headline as asking a question of the reader. Elvis musical genius or creepy weirdo? Kind of thing

I think the BBC are relatively unbiased and impartial. Certainly more than some of the youtube channels posted here.

From the article I agree with the views on the American food industry etc. I don't agree with some of his other stuff. He's a high profile person from a high profile family. Personally I'd rather hear his views so I can form my own opinion rather than RFK being ignored and censored.

I largely agree (and I like the BBC generally) but sometimes I feel they are so concerned with being impartial that they actually give credence to things that shouldn't have any air time at all, all in the name of impartiality.

I haven't read the article so not sure this is an example of that but no one would suggest a BBC article along the lines of "The shape of the planet: is it really round?" Or "WW2, did Churchill provoke Hitler" or indeed "Vaccines: are they really all that?"

All of those headlines could be portrayed as being objective and impartial, they're just asking questions right, but in reality it fosters a culture of misinformation under the guise of impartiality.

 

[ncurd]

I largely agree (and I like the BBC generally) but sometimes I feel they are so concerned with being impartial that they actually give credence to things that shouldn't have any air time at all, all in the name of impartiality.

I haven't read the article so not sure this is an example of that but no one would suggest a BBC article along the lines of "The shape of the planet: is it really round?" Or "WW2, did Churchill provoke Hitler" or indeed "Vaccines: are they really all that?"

All of those headlines could be portrayed as being objective and impartial, they're just asking questions right, but in reality it fosters a culture of misinformation under the guise of impartiality.

Which is my objection its asking the question of RFK (a known anti-vaxxer) has a point. The answer is no but it gives credence to his dangerous views.

I also think the BBC has been getting steadily worse since 2016 (before the vote) where its getting caught up with appearing impartial as opposed to presenting facts impartially.

 

[dirty harry]

Which is my objection its asking the question of RFK (a known anti-vaxxer) has a point. The answer is no but it gives credence to his dangerous views.

I also think the BBC has been getting steadily worse since 2016 (before the vote) where its getting caught up with appearing impartial as opposed to presenting facts impartially.

Jesus, the right berate them BBC for being left wing, you hate it for being too impartial lol

The article was decent, RFK is an important person, and holds a myriad of views, questioning things or analysing people's opinions you disagree with isnt dangerous, its constructive.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Jesus, the right berate them BBC for being left wing, you hate it for being too impartial lol

The article was decent, RFK is an important person, and holds a myriad of views, questioning things or analysing people's opinions you disagree with isnt dangerous, its constructive.

Generally speaking if both sides of an argument are unhappy with the BBC’s portrayal of the argument then they’re doing a good job, what me and ncurd are saying is there’s somethings that shouldn’t be in the discussion like anti vax, shape of the planet, religious interpretations of history of the planet etc etc.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I think overall the article doesn't paint RFK Jnr in a good light. End of the day the guy is a dangerous idiot. Headlines are there to grab viewer's attention.
"Nuanced" - by that it's trying to explain what his supporters thinking, and why Trump has hired the guy to appeal that type of thinking.

More and more peeps are beginning to turn their back on BBC News. Personally I think they are still worth persevering with; in a climate where our news is becoming more and more put behind paid wall and relying on their echo chambers on social media.

 

[Reiser99]

Which is my objection its asking the question of RFK (a known anti-vaxxer) has a point. The answer is no but it gives credence to his dangerous views.

I also think the BBC has been getting steadily worse since 2016 (before the vote) where its getting caught up with appearing impartial as opposed to presenting facts impartially.

Agreed, some opinions are not valid just because someone thinks it. You only have to look at the evidence to see there is no debate. Diseases that were almost eradicated when vaccines were used are now coming back as people stop using vaccines. The evidence is there and even giving any airtime to other views is dangerous and personally child abuse.

However, let's take an extreme, if someone somehow managed to make a child marriage movement that gained traction like the anti-vax movement has, do you think the BBC would publish an article even suggesting that the opinion might be valid? I don't think so, the outcry would be huge and justifiably so. By publishing this article in an attempt to be impartial they are actually not being impartial because they are choosing which views should be given a platform and which shouldn't.

 

[Saintjay]

Agreed, some opinions are not valid just because someone thinks it. You only have to look at the evidence to see there is no debate. Diseases that were almost eradicated when vaccines were used are now coming back as people stop using vaccines. The evidence is there and even giving any airtime to other views is dangerous and personally child abuse.

However, let's take an extreme, if someone somehow managed to make a child marriage movement that gained traction like the anti-vax movement has, do you think the BBC would publish an article even suggesting that the opinion might be valid? I don't think so, the outcry would be huge and justifiably so. By publishing this article in an attempt to be impartial they are actually not being impartial because they are choosing which views should be given a platform and which shouldn't.

Equaly you then have to ask who's views do they give creedance to and under what criteria?

If they had stuck to his views on the American food industry would that be ok to publish for example

 

[dirty harry]

Generally speaking if both sides of an argument are unhappy with the BBC's portrayal of the argument then they're doing a good job, what me and ncurd are saying is there's somethings that shouldn't be in the discussion like anti vax, shape of the planet, religious interpretations of history of the planet etc etc.

Shouldn't be in the discussion? Would you restrict what the BBC journalists are allowed to report on?

The problem with your stance, is highlighted beautifully by Ncurds words, if Anti vaxx isn't allowed to be discussed with any merit (I'd assume any criticism of any vaxine would be in that) then RFK is an anti vaxxer and should not have his environmental and health stances discussed with any credence, and there's a word for that stance!

 

[McTallshort]

I really don't see the BBC painting him in a good light having read the article. He is the head of American health (well apparently he is I thought Gabbard was head of intelligence but apparently she's just a project manager with limited information) and that does mean his decisions have impacts on people inside and outside the US so it's fair that the BBC do an article on him.